Talk:Beth-Anath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For previous discussion:[edit]

see Talk:Bi'ina, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooopsh: serious mix-up: Ain Aata vs Aynata[edit]

Well, I (stupidly) took what was in Ain Aata to be correct. Alas, that stuff was added by (now banned user) Bedson. The Thomson, 1859, p. 315 is clearly Aynata and not Ain Aata! And the same for Guérin, 1880, p. 374: that is also Aynata.

I don't have the Georg Kampffmeyer (1892)-ref (does anyone?) And I don't know where de Velde mentions it; does anyone have the ref? Huldra (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the van de Velde ref also clearly refers to Aynata: I have changed it, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: Check your mailbox shortly. Zerotalk 07:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks; as to:

  • Kampffmeyer, G. [in German] (1892). Alte Namen im heutigen Palästina und Syrien (in German). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. pp. 38, 42, 61, 64, 85, 87. OCLC 786490264.

..that should (more correctly?) be called:

and:

The problem is: I cannot see anything about Beth-Anath in any of these three sections? Ie, the only 38, 42, 61 (all in vol 16), and the only pp 85, 87 (both in vol 15); I cannot see anything very relevant to this article??

User:Davidbena; (since I believe it was you who added Kampffmeyer), what am I not seeing? Huldra (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: to the best of my knowledge, your references point to a journal (ZDPV), but I was actually looking at a book by that title, albeit a small book, and which I saw at the Hebrew University National Library. When I return there, I will be able to check the book once again and cite the exact page number. Until I do this, you are free to remove the source. Meanwhile, by checking the catalogue of the Hebrew University National Library I found this, and it shows that the book has only 94 pages.Davidbena (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Davidbena: since the title is exactly the same: I suspect the book is possibly a summary of the articles? 94 pages is less than the 3 article-pages together. Anyway, looking forward to your checking this, and an answer to the questions: I. Is this book a copy of the 1892 articles? II. Is there anything about Beth-Anath in it? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra:;@Zero0000:, shalom. Thank you, both, for your watchful eyes. I know of myself that I would NEVER purposely lie about a reference, and so I began to think that I may have made an inadvertent mistake. I decided to go back over my notes at home. I have just now reviewed my notes from the day that I visited the Library in Jerusalem, and this is what I've found: Georg Kampffmeyer, Alte Namen im heutigen Palästina und Syrien, sect 15, p. 38, Beth-anath = ʻAināṯā. The same identification has been made by G. Kampffmeyer in the same book on the following pages: p. 42 (sect. 17); p. 61 (sect. 24); p. 64 (sect. 26); p. 85 (sect. 50), and p. 87 (sect. 59). By this, therefore, there has been no mistake by placing the cited reference in the article's sub-section Aynata. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: I have never, ever suspected you of deliberately inserting a false reference! But:......we all make mistakes (I have made dozens/hundreds(?)....please don't make me list them(!) )....therefore we need "watchful eyes". Looking forward to you rechecking your notes! ..and to see if they match with my above 1892-links? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly recheck the book when I go the next time to the Hebrew University Library. What remains to be clarified in G. Kampffmeyer's book is what site was he specifically referring to: whether Ain Aata or Aynata, given the way that he transliterates the name of the place. It may, indeed, be that he had in mind Ain Aata. At the time of my edit, I did not make the connection between the two. So, here, we need some investigative work. By the way, although it may or may not be related to Ainata, we find that "Beth-anath" - with its defective spelling of בת ענה‎ - is mentioned in the Tosefta (Kila'im 2:16) as being a place along the frontier of the "Land of Israel," being swallowed-up almost completely by non-Jewish towns and villages, although it had a mixed Jewish and non-Jewish population. Again, I appreciate your diacritical inquiry and investigation into this matter, in order to promote this online encyclopedia's accuracy and adherence to detail. God bless.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: See p. 71 here in the journal ZDPV, where Beth-anath is mentioned as Ainata.Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena; yeah, I see Ainata...but where is Beth-anath mentioned? Now, my German isn't exactly splendid, (especially 130 year old very "formal", "academic" German); but as I understand those articles: it is more about how certain writers (like Robinson, Socin) have translated between Arabic and Hebrew and latin letters? And not so much about the actual geographic location of each village? Is there anything I am missing? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. I just assumed that you can read Hebrew. The text reads: "בית ענת‎ = 'Ainata." For those who don't know, בית ענת‎ are the Hebrew words for Beth-anath.Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks; I use that ref instead, then, hope that is ok, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bi'ina part:[edit]

Perhaps we should order this, according to time? I mean: it looks a bit silly when it says:

"Bi'ina in the Beit HaKerem Valley which divides Upper Galilee from the Lower Galilee was suggested by Ze'ev Safrai.[12][13] This view is accepted by a host of archaeologists and historical geographers: W.F. Albright, (1921/1922: 19–20); Neubauer (1868:235–ff.); Abel (1928, pp. 409–415; 1938: 266); Alt (PJB 22, 1926, pp. 55–ff.; 24, 1928, p. 87);......"

...when Ze'ev Safrai was born/worked looong after those who "accepted" this view: surely it should be the other way around? Ie, IMO, we should start with Neubauer (or whoever it was who first to suggest Bi'ina), Comments? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be fixed so that it makes sense, chronologically.Davidbena (talk)
User:Davidbena...waiting... :).....Huldra (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Bu'eine Nujeidat?[edit]

Should we have a section on Bu'eine Nujeidat? User:Zero0000; do you have any sources?Huldra (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra:, it was Israeli archaeologist Yoram Tsafrir who thought Beth-anath may have actually been Bu'eine, as you can see here: Tsafrir, Y.; Leah Di Segni; Judith Green (1994). (TIR): Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea, Palestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic , Roman and Byzantine Periods; Maps and Gazetteer. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. p. 80. ISBN 965-208-107-8.. If you'd like to add the new section, feel free to do so. Do you know of any others who may have suggested this site for the biblical Beth-anath?Davidbena (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Davidbena: I have the Tsafrir et al book, on p. 80 he refers to Guerin as a source for that suggestion. But I cannot see that Guérin, 1880, pp. 363-364 says anything about Beth-Anath when he writes about Bu'eine Nujeidat? (But my French is ahem, rudimentary, so better French-speakers: please correct me!) Huldra (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you double-checked. I also do not see anything from Guerin about Beth-anath. I'm at a loss as to what to suggest.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: @Huldra: Tsafrir identifies Beth Anath with el Bu'eina with a question mark and cites Guérin as a source on el Bu'eina. He doesn't cite Guérin for the identification. Guérin actually identifies Beth Anath with A'nata, see Galilee II, 374. Given the multiplicity of spellings, the quickest way to find this is to scan Guérin's combined index for the two Galilee volumes. Zerotalk 03:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. You have clarified everything. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tsafrir cites both Bu'eine Nujeidat(184/245) and Bi'ina (175/260) with questionmarks. I would have thought that he didn't just mention them without any reason, though? And if it is not Guerin, than that would be in any of the other sources he mentions, ie: Yalqut, par. 37 • Gazetteer, p. 37 • Ovadiah, Suppl. ill,no.6? Huldra (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anat[edit]

This article identifies Anat with Ninhursag, but no such connection is mentioned in the articles about the goddesses. Where does this idea derive from? Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems completely ahistorical to me. Anat was worshiped in Mesopotamia simply under her own name (and, indeed, the oldest attestations of her are Mesopotamian, specifically Mariote) - you can even view the inscriptions pertaining to this matter in the "external links" section of her page - and the only possible identification, limited to uncommon scribal conventions and a god list whose theological value has been called into question, is not really in any shape or form Ninhursag-related. The only "western" goddess identified with Ninhursag that I am aware of is Shalash, who demonstrably has nothing to do with Anat either. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beth-Anath&oldid=1195724415"