Biblical Archaeology Review

Frederick J. Bliss and Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister, Excavations in Palestine 1898–1900 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1902). Also see Michael Avi-Yonah and Amos Kloner, “Maresha (Marisa),” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), vol. 3, pp. 948–957.

In other words, nouns like ‘BD and R‘ belong morphologically to two separate nominal classes; therefore, they should not be indiscriminately treated, as done by Rogerson and Davies.

See, for example, 2 Samuel 15:37.

Cf. 2 Kings 2:21; Psalms 107:33; Isaiah 58:11.

See Barth, p. 7835b, n. 1.

Over a century ago, the prominent Semitist J. Barth in Nominalbildung (Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1894), p. 276, n. 2, noted that the first letter of the word te‘alah (hl[t) should not be treated as a prefixed morpheme, since it is radical; the root of te‘alah (hl[t) is therefore T‘L (l[t), not ‘LH (hl[). A reference to Barth is readily available in E. Ben Iehuda’s Thesaurus, XVI (New York/London: Thomas Yoseloff, 1959), p. 7835b, n. 1.

J.C.L. Gibson, A Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1971), p. 22.

Cf. Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).

G. Levi Della Vida, “The Shiloah\ Inscription Reconsidered” (in German), in Beihette zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1968), pp. 162–166; and Zipora Talshir, “The Detailing Formula ‘WZE(H)DBR’” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 51 (1981–1982), pp. 23–25.