Talk:Beth-Anath

For previous discussion:
see Talk:Bi'ina, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooooopsh: serious mix-up: Ain Aata vs Aynata
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)
 * Since the van de Velde ref also clearly refers to Aynata: I have changed it, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Check your mailbox shortly. Zerotalk 07:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks; as to:

..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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 - 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. I just assumed that you can read Hebrew. The text reads: " = 'Ainata." For those who don't know, are the Hebrew words for Beth-anath.Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks; I use that ref instead, then, hope that is ok, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bi'ina part:
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)
 * Yes, it should be fixed so that it makes sense, chronologically.Davidbena (talk)
 * User:Davidbena...waiting... :).....Huldra (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bu'eine Nujeidat?
Should we have a section on Bu'eine Nujeidat? User:Zero0000; do you have any sources?Huldra (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it was Israeli archaeologist Yoram Tsafrir who thought Beth-anath may have actually been Bu'eine, as you can see here: . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, that makes sense. You have clarified everything. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Anat
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)


 * 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)

3 refs

 * 1:"W.L.A., in Kitto, 1862, p. 344" This ref from 1862 says: "In the Onomasticon it is called Villa Bathanæa, fifteen Roman miles from Caesarea (i.e., Diocaesarea Sepphoris ; see Reland, Palaest. p. 629), and said to have medicinal baths" Now, Diocaesarea Sepphoris apparently was Sepphoris, which certainly had Roman Baths, though not natuaral hot baths, AFAIK.


 * 2: This ref gives two different Beth-Anath: Beth-Anath I at 'Anin (at 165/211), and Beth-Anath II el Bu'eina? (at 184/245). He  also writes that Beth-Anath I had "hot baths". Now, AFAIK these isn't a natural hot baths anywhere near  'Anin. I wonder if there wasn't a mix-up between Caesarea Philippi; ie  Banias, and the "hot springs" were the ones at present Hamat Gader?


 * 3:the Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea, translated by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, (2003), also operates with (at least) 2 different places:

User:Davidbena: what do you make of it; should we expand the article, to make it clear that this name appears to belong to more than one place? Huldra (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Beth Anath (in Galilee the Plain of Sharon) see Aneiel 110: "Aneiel = Baitoanaia. Anaia III, Bethanatha, Batanaia. J: Aniel, Betoaenea, Anea, Bethana, Batanaca, Neiel, Ianahl (Greek); Inahl (Greek), Inhi (Egyptian hieratic), Batanaia, Beityannay, Anin, Khirbet Yanin, Horvat Ya‘anin /Land: 440 [171/255] • Abel: 398 • 'Anin—Gaz.: 37 (Beth Anath 1) [165/211) • Betoaenea. Batanaca. (Beth Yannai?)—TIR: 88 [165/211]. In Onom. 30 Euesbius refers to Aniel Baitoanaia as tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:27) but in Oman. 52 he refers to Bethanatha = Batanaia as tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19: 38). He equates two Biblical sites with the same village Baitoanaia/Batanaia —15 milestones east of Caesarea Philippi. In Onom. 52 Eusebius notes a previous mention of "Anaia" when it is in fact “Aneiel." the site most likely corresponding to the village. For Bethanatha, see below. Unexcavated. 30, 52"
 * Beth-anath (in Jezreel) see Bethanatha 120: "Bethanatha = Bathma?, J: Bethana. Bethnath? Beth-anath, Safed el-Battikh?—Land: 431 [190/289] • el-Bu'eina? Gaz.: 37 (Beth Anath II) [184/245] • el-Bueina? or Ba’ina?— TIR: 80 [184/245] and [175/260]), respectively. Eusebius appears to have made a mistake in equaling this Biblical site with a village named Baitoanaia or Balanaia, 15 miles east of Caesarea Philippi. None of these sites corresponds to either of the sites called Anaia already mentioned by Eusebius; this site therefore becomes Anaia III. It is evident from the suggested identifications given (in Galilee) —Land: 431 •in the Plain of Sharon —Gaz.: 37, that there is no agreement on the identification even of the region in which the site is located. Unexcavated. See also Aneiel. 52. 54"


 * , Actually, if I can remember correctly, we made note of the fact that there are conflicting views as to Beth-Anath and how it should be identified. It is always best, in areas of doubt, to mention all views. Currently, this article mentions six places that could have possibly been the biblical Beth-Anath. Best of wishes.Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena, Hmmm, it isn't so much as what is presently presented as Beth Anath, but the fact(?) that Beth Anath was the name of 2 (or 3?) different places in the ancient time. And the article presently (using the ref 1) only identlfies it with 1 place.
 * Incidentally, the sentence "Eusebius, in his Onomasticon, placed it 9 miles (14 km) from Dora (Tanturah), however this falls outside the territory of Naphtali" in the article is sourced to ref 1, but I cannot see that ref mentions anything about Dora?? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I still see that these authors point to various sites as the possible "Beth Anath", but not that they saw them all as places bearing the name "Beth Anath". This is the way of historical geographers when they are in doubt about a certain biblical place, because of phonetic similarities in sound between archaeological sites (or Arab villages) and biblical place names. It is true, however, that there are multiple sites that share identical names, such as Socho, and Zanoach, as both of these places have two separate listings in the Book of Joshua. See Joshua 15:34 and Joshua 15:56 for Zanoach, and see Joshua 15:48 and Joshua 15:35 for Socho. There were also several places in the Hebrew Bible called Timnah. According to Joshua 15:59, there was a place in the mountains of Judah, south of Jerusalem, called Beth-Anoth, but this place has nothing to do with the places in Galilee or with the place in the Plain of Sharon and which are mentioned by the above authors. As for Anaia III mentioned by Eusebius, or Baitoanaia/Batanaia —15 milestones east of Caesarea Philippi, give me time and I'll look again at these sources in Eusebius' Onomasticon. The most important thing to account for here is that we're looking for a place that meets the description of "Beth-Anath" mentioned in Joshua 19:38, in the territory formerly settled by the sons of Naphtali in Galilee.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: I still don't understand how you can write "Eusebius, in his Onomasticon, placed it 9 miles (14 km) from Dora (Tanturah), however this falls outside the territory of Naphtali" in the article, based on ref 1? Huldra (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , The commentators on Eusebius' Onomasticon mention that this was an error by Eusebius, as it clearly does not fall inside the territorial domain of Naphtali. It is only natural, then, that this entry be removed.Davidbena (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena; ok, I just removed the sentence. But we should have something about Eusebius, and his Onomasticon -messup, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. When I find the time, I'll try and do this. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't have time to do this (busy for the rest of the year). But it does seem central to why there are so many places suggested as Biblical Beth-Anath: if Beth-Anath originally referred to more than one place, cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)