SV: [ANE-2] Re: Michmethath
- But where does the grid 179 171 fall within the map 17-17? Near the
bottom or near the top? Is grid 179 171 further north than 178 172
or further south?
- thanks, David Nunes da Silva
No, it is 100 m to the south if the reference is correctly produced. 179
171 is in the right corner at the bottom of the square. A bit frustrated
that I do not have Finkelstein Ledermann here but only my old Israel
1:100 000 maps.
The square according to my map is c. 9 kolometers south-south-west of
Niels Peter Lemche
Yahoo! Groups Links
- --- In ANEemail@example.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
> But where does the grid 179 171 fall within the map 17-17? Near
> bottom or near the top? Is grid 179 171 further north than 178 172179
> or further south?
> - thanks, David Nunes da Silva
> No, it is 100 m to the south if the reference is correctly produced.
> 171 is in the right corner at the bottom of the square. A bitfrustrated
> that I do not have Finkelstein Ledermann here but only my old Israelof
> 1:100 000 maps.
> The square according to my map is c. 9 kolometers south-south-west
> Tell balata.Thank you. That seemed the logical way to do it, but when I tried to
> Niels Peter Lemche
plot using that assumption it came out all wrong. But if you are
familiar with the maps, that settles it; I must have made a mistake
So I will plot based on the four corners of 17-17 being:
170 179 | 179 179
170 170 | 179 170
I don't want to continue the Shechem discussion, since I gather there
is a three level limit on back-and-forth replies, but let me say two
things to clear up a any wrong impressions:
1. I am not engaged in trying to either prove or disprove the Bible;
I am looking at the tribal border descriptions in Joshua, trying to
understand what they say, using the principle, which has asserted by
others, that tribal borders ran along the territory borders of the
towns mentioned, never to the actual towns.
2. I have made no reference to the stories of Shechem in Genesis, as
that would not be relevant to a document, which is about events in the
time of Joshua, and was written even later than
that. I have not taken a position on when the border descriptions
written, but I suppose most scholars these days (when every revision
seems to be for a later date) would say divided monarchies if not
later. So I take the Samaria ostraca to be either contemporary with,
or earlier than, the writer of the document, and thus certainly not
too late to be of interest. I am more interested in conditions during
the writer's life, than in Joshua's.
(Even if a united monarchies date of writing proves to be correct,
which wouldn't surprise me at all, I would still say the ostraca are
relevant to conditions in the writer's time.)
- David Nunes da Silva