Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SV: [ANE-2] Re: Michmethath

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    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? -
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 30, 2006
      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
      Tell balata.

      Niels Peter Lemche









      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • davo.dasilva
      ... the ... 179 ... frustrated ... of ... Thank you. That seemed the logical way to do it, but when I tried to plot using that assumption it came out all
      Message 2 of 2 , May 1 9:57 AM
        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > 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
        > Tell balata.
        >
        > Niels Peter Lemche
        >
        >

        Thank you. That seemed the logical way to do it, but when I tried to
        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
        somewhere else.

        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
        were
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.