Biblical Archaeology Review

For example, Rainey in a review of Bimson, Redating, in IEJ 30 (1980), p. 250; Zevit, “The Problem of Ai,” BAR 11:02.

When this site was first proposed in 1970, its name was unknown and so it was described as “unnamed” (Livingston, “Location of Biblical Bethel,” p. 43). However, on a map produced by Claude R. Conder and Horatio, Lord Kitchener (The Survey of Western Palestine [London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883]) the site is featured and given the name “Khirbet Nisieh,” which is here modernized as Khirbet Nisya.

Kochavi, Judea, Samaria and the Golan, p. 178, site no. 94.

For a much fuller discussion of the points raised here against locating Bethel at Beitin, and in favor of its location at Bireh, see Livingston, “Location of Bibbcal Bethel,” and “Traditional Site of Bethel Questioned,” WTJ 34/1 (1971), pp. 39–50. The latter is a response to Anson F. Rainey, “Bethel Is Still Beitin,” WTJ 33/2 (1971), pp. 175–188.

Bireh is sometimes assumed to be the site of Biblical Beeroth, but Eusebius (Onomasticon 48.9) clearly places Beeroth much farther south. It should lie between modern Biddu and Nebi Samwil. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, p. 431, places it at Khirbet el-Burj.

Zechariah Kallai, “Kateph,” IEJ 15 (1965), p. 178.

Robinson, Physical Geography of the Holy Land (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1865), p. 41.

Robinson, Biblical Researches, pp. 449–450.