Danaans and Danites—Were the Hebrews Greek?

037

Cyrus Gordon—the brilliant, maverick scholar—has spent a significant part of his professional life searching for connections between the early Greeks and Hebrews. His most popular effort in this area is a book entitled The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (New York: Norton, 1966).

Long a professor at Brandeis University, Gordon now teaches at New York University. Although he is regarded as a leading Ugaritic scholar (he wrote the basic Ugaritic textbook), some of his other work is sometimes seen as tenuous, speculative and often wrong.

In a new book entitled Bronze Age Civilization—The Philistines and the Danites^a, a disciple of Gordon’s—Gordon wrote the foreword—carries on the effort to find connections between the Hebrews and the Greeks.

The author of this new book, Professor Allen H. Jones of Montgomery College, contends that the Philistines were originally Greeks who came to Palestine via Egypt.

Professor Jones gives a novel etymology to the name Philistine. “Phil”, he says, is derived from the Greek phyle (phylon), meaning “tribe” or a military contingent of some tribes. The latter part of the name Philistine, in Professor Jones’ own words, “could only refer to Hestia, or the Ionian Histie, goddess of the hearth.” In short, the Philistines were really “the tribe of Histie”, or perhaps a military contingent of the tribe.

As is well-known and commonly accepted, the Philistines were only one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached Canaan at about the same time as the Israelites. Professor Jones, however, goes one step—or perhaps several steps further. As many as six Israelite tribes—Dan, Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, Naphtali and perhaps Gad—were either sea-faring people or had something to do with the sea. According to Jones, these tribes were probably originally part of the Aegean Sea Peoples.

As part of his “proof”, Jones traces the name Danites to the Danaans, a name that Homer often used for all Greeks. Professor Jones recognizes that “to most scholars any connection between the Danaans and the Biblical tribe of Dan would be far-fetched to say the least”. In this, he is undoubtedly right.

Professor Jones also attempts to trace Danite origins to a time predating their Greek association. According to Jones, these people were originally Semites who probably came to Greece from the Levant as a result of the Hyksos invasions. So they were Semites to begin with! After becoming one of the Sea Peoples, they came back to Palestine with the Philistines. Thus, in a sense, they were returning home, albeit after a profound Hellenizing experience.

Although the Philistines were eventually dislodged, principally by King David, the Danites and the sea tribes were absorbed into the Israelite Confederacy, according to Jones.

In addition to the alleged etymological connections between Danites and Danaans, Jones relies on other evidence for his theory regarding the connection. The territory originally assigned to Dan in the Bible overlaps Philistine territory, suggesting, says Jones, that Dan was one of the Sea Peoples originally allied with the Philistines. Then too, Dan is clearly associated with the sea; Deborah asks in these words why Dan did not answer the call and join the battle against Sisera: “Dan, why did he remain with the ships?” (Judges 5:17). Dan is one of the more lowly tribes—or “half-caste”, to use Professor Jones’ word. As Jacob turns to Dan to bless him, he says (according to the New English Bible): “Dan—how insignificant his people, lowly as any tribe in Israel!” (Genesis 49:16). In other standard translations of this difficult verse, such as the King James Bible, Jacob says: “Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel” (Genesis 49:16). The “as”, Professor Jones tells us, 038suggests that Dan will be treated as one of the tribes of Israel even though in fact he is not.

Speculation on this kind of evidence provides mental gymnastics for the agile imagination. But it is not scholarship. The leap from the problems reflected in the evidence to the solutions posed by the author is simply too great. But he does suggest some interesting questions. And an occasional flight of fancy is enjoyable—who knows what really happened?—as long as you are prepared to come back to earth after turning the final page.

Strangely enough, Professor Jones does not consider the archaeological evidence from the excavations at Tell Dan now being conducted by Dr. Avraham Biran. What support Professor Jones might find in the Tell Dan Mycenean tomb!

Cyrus Gordon—the brilliant, maverick scholar—has spent a significant part of his professional life searching for connections between the early Greeks and Hebrews. His most popular effort in this area is a book entitled The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (New York: Norton, 1966).