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

SV: [ANE-2] Re: Michmethath

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , May 1, 2006
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.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 178 172
      > 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 bit
      > 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
      > 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
      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.