Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Banyai Michael" <banyai AT t-online.de>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> >The coastal plain would be easier for travel than the highlands of
> >Judah. Who knows which would have been cheaper? And whichever way you go
> >(apart from through Moab), I guess, KA is en route from Israel to Eilat.


> If they go down the coast, why don't they simply tap in at Gaza? Going down
> the coastal plain is obviously not an option, whereas going south from the
> Shephelah is. From the Shephelah Kuntillat Ajrud makes sense.


> >(But could KA be en route from Israelite-controlled Moab to Egypt?)
>
> (I think Edom is in the way. But then what's the source of your
> "Israelite-controlled Moab"?)

I still wonder your argumentation. You refuse all routes to KA except the
Shephela (partly on good grounds) but leave aside the sea-way till Raphia
because it wouldn´t fit your argumentation and would make an Israelite
controll over the so-called Juda nonsense. Or do you have any more grounds
nthan this one to leave it out?

Than a slight inconsequence:
since the Israelite merchants left plenty of Israelite ceramics in KA, why
didn´t they do so in the Shephelah?

Because they obviously didn´t do so, (why should they have done, since
they are only a product of your fantasy?) you find some architectural
features of the city gates as sufficient to demonstrate their controll of
the Shephelah. In the Israelite mainland and KA they left Israelite
ceramics behind, in the Shephelah, just for the sake of the entertainment,
not.

Could we still lower the standard of argumentation?
I don´t think we could.

Best regards,

Banyai Michael