Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT xsinet.co.za>]

Walter, you wrote:
 
> Dear John,
> 
> Your proposal that el-Bireh is Bethel was countered by Professor Lemche's
> advisory to this list that Beeroth was 7 Roman miles from Jerusalem
> according to Hieronymous. I don't recall your making a "refutation" to this
> important piece of information :
> 
> Professor Lemche:
> "It is, however, interesting to note that Hieronymus translates the said
> part of Eusebius as: Beeroth sub colle Gabaon. ostenditur hodieque uilla ab
> Aelia euntibus Neapolim in septimo lapide."
> 
Niels did not "counter" my proposal that el-Bireh is
Bethel,  Whether Beeroth was on the road to Neapolis or
Nikopolis is "important" for locating Beeroth but not for
identifying el_Bireh, unless you can provide justification
for why we should accept the dubious "Neapolis" but throw
out "seven miles" and make Beeroth anywhere we want to on
the road to Neapolis, such as el-Bireh, even though el_Bireh
is where Eusebius said Bethel was.

It is in any case doubtful we are to prefer the reading
found in Jerome - seven miles north on the road to Nikopolis
would put Beeroth a mile or less north of Ramah, closer to
Ramah than is Geba; yet in Ezra and Nehemiah it is Ramah and
Geba that are "twin cities," while Beeroth is listed on its
own.  

> As you have correctly noted Deir Dibwan (Beth-aven ?) is not "due west" of
> Michmash. But I might add neither is el-Bireh "literally due West" of
> Michmash, it is NW, so your proposal suffers the same problem as mine,

As you know, my objection was not that Deir Dibwan is not
"due west" of Michmash, so I suppose you changed what I did
say into something you could refute, since you could not
refute what I did say (you do this all the time with the
biblical statements, changing them into something else so
that you can refute them).  What I said was that Michmash
was almost due south of Deir Dibwan, so it is very doubtful
that Michmash would be described as anything but south of
Deir Dibwan - but 1 Sam 13:5 says it was east of Beth Awen. 
If you can find another example where a city that is at 160
degrees from another (my guess looking at the map) is
described as "east" of it, then I will concede your point. I
could concede it anyway, since Deir Dibwan is excluded from
being Beth Awen (if Bethel is Beitin) by the relationship
described between these two.

> neither proposal supports Beth-Awen as being "literally due West" of
> Mukhmas (Michmash ?), as portrayed in 1 Samuel 13: 5-
> 
Who said Beth Awen was literally due west of Michmash?  You
can easily discover for yourself that as far as we know
Israelites did not have words for northeast, northwest, etc.
Josh 7:2 likely implies Beth Awen is east of Bethel and Josh
18:12-13 likely implies Beth Awen is north of Bethel, so
Northeast (not east-southeast) is just what we should
expect.

<snipped>
> 
> Your proposal that Beitin might be Beth-aven, I note, has some "suggested
> support" in that the prophets are believed to have called Bethel, Beth-aven
> (Hos. 4:15; 5:8;10:5; Amos 5:5). If this is the case, then "in antiquity,
> the location became confused." In which case, both of us are right, Beitin
> is Beth-aven and it is also Beth-el.

It's not the prophets that are confused.  Bethel is the
second most commonly mentioned OT city (after Jerusalem) so
I doubt anybody confused it with anything.  When Bethel is
called "Beth Awen" it is a nickname used to highlight the
spiritual state of Bethel; Bethel (= house of God) has
become Beth Awen (= house of iniquity, at least according to
one meaning of Awen).
 
> In regards to the possiblity of "confused directions" in the biblical text I
> note that the Tanakh preserves an incorrect statement about a border, which
> scholars found it needful to "amend" :
> 
> "From the outskirts of Kiriath-jearim, the boundary passed WESTWARD* and ran
> on to the fountain of the the waters of Nephtoah." (p. 365, Joshua 18:15,
> Tanakh, Jewish Pub. Society, Philadelphia, 1988)

Which means what?  Data that I cite to refute you might be
mis-transmitted but data that seems to support your
conclusions is above suspicion?


Regards,

John Ronning