Further comment re Morganite's comment in the initial discussion of the "ED":i.e., "The altar was built on Jordan’s West Bank (some say on the East Bank)."

I was reading an article recently that stated that archeologists searched for some time on the "East Bank" for the "ED" -- to no avail. However, when they searched on the West Bank, they discovered the "ED."

A closer look at the Scripture describing this incident makes it clear where it was erected. It's all in the interpretation -- of the lack thereof -- that caused the confusion for centuries. ("Thanks" to Morganite for referencing this particular point.)

A closer look at Joshua 22:6 & 10: "So Joshua blessed them, and sent them away: and they went unto their tents. Joshua 22:6 (Their "tents" were on the East side of the Jordan.)

However, when we look at Joshua 22:10, we see reference to the land of Canaan (implying the interior -- across Jordan on the West Bank).

"And when they came unto the BORDERS OF JORDAN, that are in the land of Canaan (again implying the interior -- across Jordan on the West Bank), the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to "see to" (meaning "could be seen from a great distance").

Just an item of interest -- thanks to Morganite's keen perception initially.

Your additional thoughts/comments are always appreciated and useful in future studies.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Bobbye
P.S. Unless the Jordan "shifted" since the days of Joshua, the altar was built on the West Bank, rather than the East Bank. However, the discovery on the West Bank demands attention to (1) Initial building site; (2) Shifting of the Jordan; or the definition of Canaan must imply "interior" -- thus, the West Bank as the site.

EXACT LOCATIONS ARE IMPORTANT IN THE TEACHING OF BIBLICAL CARTOGRAPHY RE SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES.

Morganite

They are indeed 'important.' However, there is a caveat not to be overlooked, which is that some locations of Biblical events are unclear, imprecise, and it is not unknown for two or more places to be named as the site of one particular event. This arises from the melding of discrete accounts from diverse traditions that have been clumsily interwoven to attempt a seamless narrative, history, etc.

The result is sometimes a document that has disjunctive passages, and material that does not sit right, such as occurs when the wrong piece of a jigsaw puzzle is hammered into a place where it does not belong. These places are the plague of Bible scholars and exegetes alike.

But it is impossible to do other than to agree that a grasp of the geography of Palestine is essential and. where it is lacking in a student, is to be encouraged, so that a more complete picture of God's dealings with Israel Old and New adds life andunderstanding to both Testaments.

Even so, we ought not to be afraid of leaving gaps where we do not know, lest we hammer into place something that does not fit because it does not belong.



MORGANITE

RickJ

I can't comment intellegently on this particular issue, but will share a resource that I just love: It's a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review.

Great stuff!

Morganite

That looks like an excellent publication. As with all archeologies, Biblical archaeology is limited in what it can support, and great care should be exercised before enthusiastically accepting that 'findings' are what they are held to be or that they 'prove' any particular thing.

Some claim, for example, that Bible archeology 'proves' the Bible to be true, either as to its history or in toto. Such a claim is excessive. It is based on the false premise that if the Bible can be shown to be accurate in one oparticular as to certain places and distances between them, then that proves everything else in the Bible must also true.

I could say, for example,

(1) that I am over seventy years old
(2) that I almost died in childbirth three times, and
(3) that my present occupation is that of Senior Tutor and Research Fellow in Biblical Studies at a secular university.

Only one of those statements is true, and you would be foolish to believe that because one is true, they all are true.

Having said that, the contribution that archaeology can make to our understanding of the past ought not to be minimised, just as it must not be overblown.

Thankyou for the link.



MORGANITE

Bobbye

Thanks, Morganite, for such scholarly inisights -- and caveats!

You add much to this forum.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Bobbye
(P.S., I think No. 1 is correct. LOL)