The Siloam Inscription (ca. 700 BCE)

BiblicalHebrew.com, 2022
The Siloam Tunnel inscription is one of the most famous ancient Hebrew inscriptions extant today. It was originally discovered (by accident) in 1880 near the end of the Siloam Tunnel in what has come to be known today as the βCity of David,β which is on the southeastern edge of the Old City of Jerusalem. The inscription commemorates the final moments of the excavation of Hezekiahβs tunnel. The reason this tunnel has been so named is because it seems to correlate with the biblical account of Hezekiah diverting the waters of the Gihon spring so that the pool would be accessible within the walls of the city ahead of the Assyrian invasion (see 2 Kgs. 20:20; Isa. 22:9β11; 2 Chr. 32:3β5, 30). It is also possible, however, that this tunnel was excavated well in advance of such an impending threat. The language of the inscription is in a literary register and records (with great suspense and excitement) the meeting of the two teams of diggers when the tunnel was finally completed. As such, the inscription titles itself ΧΧΧ¨] ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ βthe matter of the breakthroughβ (AhΜ£ituv 2008, 19β22). The inscription reads as follows:
Original Text
π€π€π€] π€π€π€π€π€. π€ π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€. π€π€π€ π€ [π€π€π€π€π€ π€π€π€π€ π€π€
π€π€π€π€π€. π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€ . π€ π€π€π€ π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€[π€π€ π€π€π€]π€. π€π€. π€π€. π€
π€]π€ π€π€. π€π€π€ . π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€[] π€ π€[π€π€]π€π€. π€ π€π€π€. π€
π€π€π€π€. π€π€π€ . π€π€π€π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€π€. π€π€π€ . π€π€π€π€. π€π€ [π€]π€π€π€. π€ π€π€π€π€
π€π€π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€ π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€[π€] π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€ π€[
π€ π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€[π€
Transcription with Audio (Ancient Script)
Ancient Script | Historical Pronunciation | Translation |
π€π€π€] π€π€π€π€π€ | daΛbar han-naqibΛbaΛ | βThe matter of the boring throughβ |
π€ π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€ | wa-ΛzeΛ haΛjaΛ daΛbar han-naqibΛbaΛ | βAnd this is the matter of the boring throughβ |
π€π€π€ π€ [π€π€π€π€π€ π€π€π€π€ π€π€] π€π€π€π€π€ | ba-ΛΚawd haΔ§-Δ§oΛαΉ£iΛbiΛm miniΛΛpiΛm ΛΚit hag-garΛzinn | βWhile the diggers were swinging the axeβ |
π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€ | ΛΚiΛΚ ΛΚil riΛΚeΛw | βa man toward his companionβ |
π€ π€π€π€ π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€[π€π€] | wa-ba-ΛΚawd ΚaΛloΛΚ ΚamΛmoΛt la-hinnaΛqib | βand with three cubits left to be bored throughβ |
π€π€π€]π€. π€π€. π€π€ | niΚΛmaΚ ΛqoΛl ΛΚiΛΚ | βthe voice of a man was heardβ |
π€[π€]π€. π€π€. π€π€π€ | qoΛΛriΚ ΛΚil riΛΚeΛw | βcalling out to his companionβ |
π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€ | ΛkiΛ haΛjaΛt ziΛΛdaΛ baαΉ£-ΛαΉ£uΛr | βfor there was a misalignment in the rockβ |
π€π€π€π€[] π€ π€[π€π€]π€π€ | mij-jaΛmiΛn wa-miΙ¬-Ι¬iΛmoΛl | βon the right and the leftβ |
π€ π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€ | wa-ba-ΛjoΛm hinnaqiΛbah | βand on the day of its being bored throughβ |
π€π€π€ . π€π€π€π€π€. | hikΛkuΛ haΔ§-Δ§oΛαΉ£iΛbiΛm | βthe diggers struckβ |
π€π€. π€π€π€π€. π€π€π€ . | ΛΚiΛΚ la-qΛrat riΛΚeΛw | βa man to meet his companionβ |
π€π€π€π€. π€π€ [π€]π€π€π€ | garΛzinn ΛΚal Λgarzinn | βaxe upon axeβ |
π€ π€π€π€π€ π€π€π€π€ | wa-jiΛlikuΛ ham-Λmajm | βand the water flowedβ |
π€π€. π€π€π€ π€π€. π€π€. π€π€π€π€π€ | min ham-mawΛαΉ£aΚ ΛΚil hab-bariΛkaΛ | βfrom the outlet to the poolβ |
π€π€π€π€π€[π€ π€ ]π€π€π€. π€π€π€ | ba-miΚaΛtajm wa-ΛΚalp ΚamΛmaΛ | βat two hundred and one thousand cubitsβ |
π€ π€[π€]π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€ | wa-miΛΚat ΚamΛmaΛ haΛjaΛ Λgubh haαΉ£-ΛαΉ£uΛr | βand one hundred cubits was the height of the rockβ |
π€π€. π€π€π€. π€π€π€π€[π€ | ΛΚal ΛroΛΚ haΔ§-Δ§oΛαΉ£iΛbiΛm | βabove the heads of the diggers.β |
Transcription with Audio (Modern Script)
Modern Script | Modern Pointed | Translation |
ΧΧΧ¨] ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ | ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨] ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ | βThe matter of the boring throughβ |
ΧΧΧ. ΧΧΧ. ΧΧΧ¨. ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ | ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨. ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ | βAnd this is the matter of the boring throughβ |
ΧΧ’ΧΧ [ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ ΧΧ Χ€Χ ΧΧͺ] ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ | ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ [ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ] ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ | βWhile the diggers were swinging the axeβ |
ΧΧ©. ΧΧ. Χ¨Χ’Χ | ΧΦ΄Χ©Χ. ΧΦΆΧ. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’ΧΦΉ | βa man toward his companionβ |
ΧΧΧ’ΧΧ. Χ©ΧΧ©. ΧΧΧͺ. ΧΧΧ [Χ§Χ | ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ. Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈ[Χ§Φ΅Χ | βand with three cubits left to be bored throughβ |
Χ Χ©Χ]Χ’. Χ§Χ. ΧΧ© | Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·]Χ’. Χ§ΦΉΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ©Χ. | βthe voice of a man was heardβ |
Χ§Χ¨]Χ. ΧΧ. Χ¨Χ’Χ | . Χ§ΦΉΧ¨Φ΅]Χ. ΧΦΆΧ. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’ΧΦΉ | βcalling out to his companionβ |
ΧΧ. ΧΧΧͺ. ΧΧΧ. ΧΧ¦Χ¨ | ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧͺ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¦Φ»ΦΌΧ¨ | βfor there was a misalignment in the rockβ |
ΧΧΧΧ[] ΧΧ[Χ©Χ]ΧΧ | ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄Χ[] ΧΦΌΧΦ΄[Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉ]ΧΧ | βon the right and the leftβ |
ΧΧΧΧ. ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ | ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ | βand on the day of its being bored throughβ |
ΧΧΧ. ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ | ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ | βthe diggers struckβ |
ΧΧ©. ΧΧ§Χ¨Χͺ. Χ¨Χ’Χ | ΧΦ΄Χ©Χ. ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χͺ. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’ΧΦΉ | βa man to meet his companionβ |
ΧΧ¨ΧΧ. Χ’Χ [Χ]Χ¨ΧΧ | ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ. Χ’Φ·Χ [ΧΦ·ΦΌ]Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ | βaxe upon axeβ |
ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ | ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ | βand the water flowedβ |
ΧΧ. ΧΧΧΧ¦Χ. ΧΧ. ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ | ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΦΈΧ. | βfrom the outlet to the poolβ |
ΧΧΧΧͺΧ[Χ Χ]ΧΧΧ£. ΧΧΧ | ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄[Χ ΧΦ°]ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ£. ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ | βat two hundred and one thousand cubitsβ |
ΧΧ[Χ]Χͺ. ΧΧΧ. ΧΧΧ. ΧΧΧ. ΧΧ¦Χ¨ | ΧΦΌΧΦ°[ΧΦ·]Χͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ»ΦΌΧ¨ | βand one hundred cubits was the height of the rockβ |
Χ’Χ. Χ¨ΧΧ©. ΧΧΧ¦Χ[Χ | Χ’Φ·Χ. Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ΄[Χ | βabove the heads of the diggers.β |
Commentary
ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ
There are several possible nominal patterns that may fit this word: */naqibbaΛ/ (β Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ) in the qaαΉillaΛ pattern, */naqiΛbaΛ/ (β Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ) in the qaαΉiΛlaΛ pattern, or */naqabaΛ/ (β Χ Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ) in the *qaαΉalaΛ pattern. AhΜ£ituv appears to favor */naqibbaΛ/, the same pattern found in nouns like Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ βreleaseβ and ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ βhumiliationβ (AhΜ£ituv 2008, 22β23).
There can be some confusion in the rendering of the root Χ Χ§Χ΄Χ throughout this inscription. While AhΜ£ituv translates it as βbreakthroughβ, a rendering like βbreakthroughβ or βbreachβ can be a bit problematic depending on how one understands it. In the Hebrew Bible, a βbreakthroughβ or βbreachβ of a wall or something like that is typically indicated by the root Χ€Χ¨Χ΄Χ₯: e.g., βΧΧΧΧΧ (ΧΧͺΧΧ) ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧΦ (Χ§Χ¨Χ) ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ£ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΦΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΉΧ₯Φ© ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Φ¨Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΦΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Φ€Χ’Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΦΧΦ΄ΧΦ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΎΧ©ΧΦ·Φ£Χ’Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈΦΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Φ₯Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΦ½ΧΧ βand he came to Jerusalem and breached the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Gate of the Corner, four hundred cubitsβ (2 Kgs. 14.13). So with the root Χ€Χ¨Χ΄Χ₯, one should have in mind something more like a wall that gets breached through so an army could enter in.
The root Χ Χ§Χ΄Χ, on the other hand, is much more like the action of a needle when sewing. It indicates a sort of βpiercingβ or a βboring throughβ rather than a βbreachβ: e.g., β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·ΦΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΈΦ€Χ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ£ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΉΦ₯Χ ΧΦΉΦΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΧΦΉ βand Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bore a hole in its lidβ (2 Kgs. 12.10); βΧ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΦ‘Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ΅Φ£Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Φ£ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΦ‘ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΎΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺΦ© ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΆΦ¨Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ¦Φ€ΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΎΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΦΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΦ¨Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Φ₯ΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΦΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦ₯Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΦΧΦΌ βand now, look, you have trusted for yourself on this broken reed staff, Egypt, which if a man were to lean on it, it would come into his hand and pierce itβ (2 Kgs. 18.21); ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Φ¨ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΦΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΦΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΎΧ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ₯ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ½ΧΦΌΧΧ βand the one who earns wages [will be] as one who earns wages into a money bag with a hole in itβ (Hag. 1.6); βΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄Φ£ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ£ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΧΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧΦ· ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ₯ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦ½ΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ βcan you put a rope in his nose, or with a hook pierce his jaw?β (Job 40.26).
This is important because it speaks to the nature of the tunnel that was dug. It was not the breaching through of a wall of sorts but rather a more precise narrow tunnel in a much larger object (i.e., the rock). The use of the root Χ Χ§Χ΄Χ would seem to envision the digging work more like that of a needle being pulled through a lump of clay than a heavy force knocking down a wall.
ΧΧ’ΧΧ
Note that the presence of vav in this word likely indicates a preserved diphthong */ba-Κawd/. It should be contrasted with ΧΧΧΧ below, which reflects a contracted diphthong: i.e., */wa-ba-joΛm/.
[ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ ΧΧ Χ€Χ ΧΧͺ]
Various emendations have been suggested for this missing passage. Presumably, the verb has to have ΧΧ¨ΧΧ βaxeβ as its object. There are several verbs that could apply here. The verb ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£-ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ£ βwield (an axe); wave (an axe)β is found in similar contexts in the Hebrew Bible: βΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΦΧ Χ’Φ·ΦΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Φ£Χ ΧΦΌΦΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΎΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Φ€Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΎΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ€ΦΧΦΉ βwill the axe boast over the one who hews with it, or the saw over the one who wields it?β (Isa. 10.15); βΧΦΉΧΦΎΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΄Φ₯ΧΧ£ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΦΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΦ½ΧΧ βyou shall wield no iron tool on themβ (Deut. 27.5). AhΜ£ituvβs suggestion of the verb ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£-ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ£ βwield (an axe); wave (an axe)β does seem plausible (2008, 23).
Alternatively, the verb Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ or Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ βto swing (an axe)β, which appears once in the nifΚΏal and once in the qal in the Tiberian tradition, might work. In one of two instances in the Hebrew Bible, the object is indicated with a preposition bet: βΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΦ¨Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΉΦ£Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΦΧ₯ βand his hand swings an axe to cut down the treeβ (Deut. 19.5). In the other example, the direct object of the axe has no preposition: βΧΦΉΦ½ΧΦΎΧͺΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Φ€ΧΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺΦΎΧ’Φ΅Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΌΦ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦΉΦ€ΧΦ· Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΦ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΦΧ βyou shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe on themβ (Deut. 20.19). Note also that the Tiberian nifΚΏal form could equally be vocalised as a qal: i.e., ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ (nifΚΏal) vs. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ (qal). This is, in fact, what we find in the Samaritan tradition: ΧΧ ΧΧ [wΛnΙΛdΙ]. Therefore, we could also restore in the empty space [ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ Χ ΧΧΧ ΧΧͺ] = [haΔ§-Δ§oΛαΉ£iΛbiΛm noΛdiΛΔ§iΛm Κit] with a similar meaning.
From a syntactic perspective, the prepositional phrase ΧΧ’ΧΧ βin; while (still)β can be followed by a simple noun phrase expressing a duration of time (e.g., ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ£ΧΦΉΧ Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΦ£Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΦΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦΌΦΈΦ€Χ Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΉΧΦ ΧΦΆΧͺΦΎΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΧΦΆΦΧΦΈ βin three days, Pharaoh will lift up your headβ (Gen. 40.13)), by a verbal clause made up of a noun followed by a participle modifier (e.g., ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΦ£ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΦΧ Χ¦Φ·ΦΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦ½ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΆΦΧ βwhile the child was still alive, I fasted and weptβ (2 Sam. 12.22)), or by a verbless clause (e.g., β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ£ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΦΧΦΌΦ·Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΦΧ βwhen Shaddai is with me…β (Job 29.5)). Therefore, in the present context, given the fact that the noun after the fragmentary bit is almost certainly an object, the most likely reconstruction would involve a noun subject + participle verbal modifier + direct object marker ΧΧͺ. AhΜ£ituv compares phrases with just Χ’ΧΦΉΧ in the Hebrew Bible (2008, 23): e.g., Χ’Φ₯ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΦΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Φ₯ΧΧ βthe people were still sacrificingβ (1 Kgs. 22.44); ΧΦ°Χ’Φ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Φ€Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Φ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΦΧ βand while I was still speaking and prayingβ (Dan. 9.20). Overall, however, the syntactic construction here is much more similar to that found in 2 Sam. 12.22 cited above.
ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ
Note that this word has a final seghol in the Tiberian tradition (i.e., ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ βaxeβ), even though nouns with ultimate stress tend much more to terminate with αΉ£ere. This is probably because the noun pattern ended with gemination at an earlier stage of development: i.e., */garΛzinn/
Χ¨Χ’Χ
As AhΜ£ituv suggests (2008, 23), the Masoretic form Χ¨Φ΅Χ’ΧΦΉ is likely due to analogy. At an earlier stage, the vav was probably consonantal after the contraction of the diphthong: i.e., */riΚayhu(Λ)/ β */riΚeΛhu(Λ)/ β */riΚeΛ(h)u(Λ)/ β */riΚeΛw/.
ΧΧ’ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧ© ΧΧΧͺ ΧΧΧ [Χ§Χ
Syntactically, this phrase may be compared with biblical phrases like ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ₯ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΎΧΦΆΦΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΦ£Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΦΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΦ€ΧΦΈ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΦ£Χ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΦΧͺ βwhen there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, I buried [her] there on the road to Ephrathβ (Gen. 48.7) and ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ¨ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΦ€Χ ΧΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΦΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΎΧ’Φ΄Φ£ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΧͺ βwhile there were still three months to go for the harvest, I would rain on one cityβ (Amos 4.7).
ΧΧΧ [Χ§Χ
The nifΚΏal infinitive form */lahinnaqib/ is probably intended here to indicate passive action of the rock or the hole being bore through.
ΧΧΧͺ
Note that the Tiberian form ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ exhibits affix pleonasm, namely the doubling up of a feminine suffix. Both Χͺ- and Χ- are feminine suffixes in Hebrew. At an early stage of the language, all 3FS verbs in the qaαΉal form terminated with */-at/: e.g., */kataba/ βhe wroteβ, but cf. */katabat/ βshe wroteβ. Over time, this final */-t/ elided and left behind a long vowel: i.e., */katabat/ β */kataba(t)/ β */katabaΛ/ βshe wroteβ. In III-y roots, however, this final */-t/ was preserved, likely to maintain a distinction between 3MS and 3FS: e.g., */bakaja/ βhe weptβ vs. */bakajat/ βshe weptβ β */bakaΛ/ βhe weptβ vs. X = ? βshe weptβ. If the final */-t/ had elided in the 3FS form of a verb like */bakajat/, it would have become identical to the 3MS form after the contraction of the triphthong. For this reason, the */-t/ was preserved to keep the 3FS form distinct from the 3MS form. What ended up happening, however, is that the final */-t/ was maintained but the syllable structure reconfigured to be consistent across the paradigm with the addition of a superfluous (or pleonastic) feminine ending */-aΛ/: i.e., (i) */bakajat/ β (ii) */bakaΛt/ β β (iii) */bakataΛ/ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ (in analogy to forms like */katabaΛ/ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ). There are some forms in the Bible, however, that did not add this pleonastic */-aΛ/, essentially stopping at stage (ii) above: e.g., ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧͺΦ βso that it will produceβ (Lev. 25.21); βΧΧΧΧͺ (ΧΧͺΧΧ) ΧΦ°Φ½ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΧ (Χ§Χ¨Χ) βand shall beβ (2 Kgs. 9.37). The form ΧΧΧͺ in this inscription also likely represents just stage (ii) in the development: i.e., */hajaΛt/.
ΧΧΧ
The word ΧΧΧ does not occur in the Bible. It has been called βthe crux of the ShiloahΜ£ (Siloam) inscription.β Historically, it has been interpreted as βfissureβ, βcrackβ, βvoidβ, βcavityβ, etc. From the perspective of etymology, various roots were suggested. The root ΧΧΧ΄Χ/ΧΧΧ΄Χ, which is associated with βboilingβ was regarded as possibly something that could relate to βburstingβ and then βsomething brokenβ. Another view takes the root as ΧΧΧ΄Χ, which has the meaning of βemptyβ. Others took the view that the root is ΧΧ Χ΄Χ, which is not found elsewhere in Hebrew but is attested in Arabic and Syriac with a possible original meaning of βbeing narrowβ. Finally, some have connected Ugaritic dΜ±d, used for βabodeβ or βdwelling placeβ, interpreted thus to mean βcavityβ or βgrottoβ. Alternative interpretations of the noun ΧΧΧ in the Siloam inscription also exist, however, such as βductβ, βexcessβ, βobstacleβ, βoverlapβ, βerrorβ, βdeviationβ, βaimingβ, βechoβ, βattackβ, βwideningβ, βdrippingβ, etc. (for a full review, see Eichler 2020, 45).
The most recent scholar to deal with this issue is Eichler, who revives an older interpretation of βerrorβ or βdeviationβ and proposes the rendering βmisalignmentβ. He bases his argument on the archaeological facts of the tunnel, namely that there was a misalignment before the diggers finally met and completed the work. It also explains why the teams had to yell to one another before they met. The phrase βon the right and on the leftβ also coheres with this meaning, since the author wanted to indicate that the misalignment was horizontal rather than vertical. Etymologically, Eichler sees the word as deriving from the root ΧΧΧ΄Χ/ΧΧΧ΄Χ, which conventionally is interpreted as meaning βboilingβ. He does suggest, however, that this root can also mean βto do wrong, to sinβ: e.g., ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΦ¨Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΦΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦ£Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΎΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΦΆΦΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Φ¨ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΦΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΎΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’Φ€ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΦΧΧΦΈΦ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΦ£ΧΧΦΈ ΧΦΈΦ½ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΦΎΧΦΈΦΧ βand you warned them, to return them to your teaching, but they hezidu and did not listen to your commandments, and against your judgments, they did sinβ (Neh. 9.29). As such, the connection between spatial wrong and moral wrong is not so wide a gap to traverse. This may even be suggested by certain parallel bicola in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Deut. 17.11β13; Ps. 119.21). Therefore, it is plausible that ΧΧΧ means βmisalignmentβ and is from the root ΧΧΧ΄Χ or ΧΧΧ΄Χ (Eichler 2020).
As far as the pronunciation goes, it could be something like (i) */zaddaΛ/, (ii) */ziddaΛ/, (iii) */zaΛdaΛ/, (iv) */ziΛdaΛ/, or (v) */zuΛdaΛ/. Nouns with middle gemination like patterns (i) and (ii) in the Hebrew Bible usually come from geminate or II-n roots: e.g., ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ βwheatβ (from ΧΧ Χ΄Χ); ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ βwordβ (from ΧΧΧ΄Χ); ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ βbrideβ (from ΧΧΧ΄Χ). On the other hand, pattern (iii) is not a common noun pattern for middle weak roots. It could, however, be a substantivized FS qal participle ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. Patterns (iv) and (v) are what one would expect for a II-w/y root. Therefore, though something like */zaΛdaΛ/ as a substantivized participle is possible, we prefer to go with */ziΛdaΛ/ as a more common noun pattern for II-y roots.
ΧΧΧΧ
Note the lack of a diphthong by the absence of vav: i.e., ΧΧΧΧ = */wa-ba-ΛjoΛm/ (*/jawm/ β */joΛm/). It is difficult to determine why the diphthong was maintained in ΧΧ’ΧΧ = */ba-Κawd/ above but not here. One suggestion is that the labial nasal consonant /m/ would me more likely to pull the the diphthong into a long /oΛ/ vowel, whereas the dental stop /d/ would have been more distinct and thus serve to preserve the preceding diphthong.
ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ
The spelling ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ be vocalised either as the definite article before the same noun as above (i.e., */han-naqiΛbaΛ/ βthe boring throughβ) or as an infinitive of the nifΚΏal binyan with a 3FS suffix (i.e., */hinnaqiΛbah/ βits being bored throughβ). In the Hebrew Bible, it is much more common for the phrase ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ βon the day of; whenβ to be followed by an infinitive construct than by a noun with the definite article denoting the nature of the day. Note many examples of the former: e.g., ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦ₯ βin the day that you eatβ (Gen. 2.17); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΦ₯ βon the day you seeβ (Exod. 10.28); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧͺΦ΄Φ€Χ βon the day that I struck downβ (Num. 8.17); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ₯ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΦΧΦΉ βon the day that he hearsβ (Num. 30.8); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ£ΧΦΉ βon the day when he assignsβ (Deut. 21.16); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ°ΧΦ½ΧΦΉΧ βon the day of its being taken awayβ (1 Sam. 21.7); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΦ½Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΧΦΉ βon the day of its being madeβ (Ezek. 43.18). There are, however, some examples of the latter: e.g., ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΎΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ€ΦΈΦΧ βon the day of the plagueβ (Num. 25.18); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ₯ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΦ½ΧΧ βon the day of the assemblyβ (Deut. 9.10); ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ₯ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦΌΦΈΦ½ΧΦΆΧΧ βon a day in which snow had fallenβ (2 Sam. 23.20). While both are possible, given the greater frequency of the infinitive in such constructions, the infinitive construct of the nifΚΏal form with a 3FS suffix is thus more likely for the phrase ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ in the inscription.
ΧΧ§Χ¨Χͺ
In the Hebrew Bible, this would be written as ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΧͺ βto meetβ with a quiescent ΚΎalef, as from the root Χ§Χ¨Χ΄Χ. It has been suggested that the form of the Siloam inscription reflects an infinitive like */lV-qroΛt/ (β ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΉΧͺ), as from the root Χ§Χ¨Χ΄Χ. More recently, Hornkohl has suggested that the original form of the Tiberian infinitive ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΧͺ βto meetβ was actually something like */lV-qirΚat/ (β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ), similar to other infinitives of a similar pattern: e.g., βΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦ£Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΦΧ ‘to fear me’ (Deut 4:10); βΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΦ£Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΦΧΦΌ ‘to lie with it’ (Lev 20:16). At a relatively early stage of the language, the ΚΎalef became quiescent in such an environment and syncope occurred: i.e., */lV-qirΚat/ β */lV-qirat/ β */lV-qrat/ (see Hornkohl 2023, Β§5). As such, the Siloam inscription form ΧΧ§Χ¨Χͺ may simply reflect the quiescence of the ΚΎalef and should be vocalised as */lV-qrat/βor more specifically */la-qrat/ given our acceptance that the preposition ΧΦ° was originally vocalised with a short /a/ vowel in Biblical Hebrew.
ΧΧΧΧΧ
Before the Second Temple period, it is unlikely that gemination of the prefix consonant was a feature of vav + yiqαΉol for narrative past (see Kantor 2020). As far as stress goes, given the penultimate stress of pausal forms like ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΦΧΧΦΌ [vaΙ-ΙeΛΛleΛΟuΛ] βand went their wayβ (Gen. 14.12), we have stressed this word on the penultimate: i.e., *wa-jiΛlikuΛ. This is based on the assumption that pausal forms in Tiberian can preserve the stress of an earlier stage of the language.
ΧΧΧΧ¦Χ
The orthography may suggest that the vav should be taken as consonantal or as a historical spelling of a collapsed diphthong. The final ΚΎalef may also be consonantal or a historical spelling. As such, four pronunciations of this word are possible: i.e., */ham-mawαΉ£aΚ/; */ham-moΛαΉ£aΚ/; */ham-mawαΉ£aΛ/; */ham-moΛαΉ£aΛ/.
ΧΧΧΧͺΧ[Χ] … ΧΧ[Χ]Χͺ
Note that the historical form of the word ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ is probably to be reconstructed as */miΚaΛ/. Even in the dual and construct, then, */miΚaΛ/ was probably the base: i.e., ΧΧΧͺΧΧ = */miΚaΛtajm/ βtwo hundredβ and ΧΧΧͺ = */miΚat/ βhundred (cstr.)β. In the Tiberian tradition, however, the ΚΎalef has quiesced, possibly reflecting a different original pattern: e.g., ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·Φ£ΧΦ΄Χ βtwo hundredβ (Gen. 11.23). The form ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ might thus reflect an earlier pattern */maΚΛtajm/.
ΧΧΧ
Note the final consonantal heh in what is probably to be vocalised as */gubh/ or maybe *[gubVh] with an epenthetic vowel before the final /h/.
Χ¨ΧΧ©
It is highly unlikely that the ΚΎalef in this word is consonantal, since the pronunciation of this word is Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ = [ΚΜoΛoΚ] in the Tiberian tradition. For a long /oΛ/ vowel to develop here, it assumes quiescence of the ΚΎalef before the Canaanite shift (*/aΛ/ β */oΛ/), which likely occurred in the second millennium BCE: i.e., */raΚΚ/ β */ra(Κ)Κ/ β */raΛΚ/ β */roΛΚ/.
Bibliography:
AαΈ₯ituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes From the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions From the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta. Pages 19β25.
Altman, Rochelle I. 2007. βSome Notes on Inscriptional Genres and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription.β Antiguo Oriente 5: 35β88.
Ben-αΈ€ayyim, Zeβev. 1977. Χ’ΧΧ¨ΧΧͺΧΧΧ¨ΧΧΧͺΧ ΧΧ‘ΧΧ©ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ: Χ’ΧΧ€ΧΧͺΧ’ΧΧΧΧͺΧ©ΧΧΧͺΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΧ’Χ Χ€Χ: ΧΧ¨Χ Χ¨ΧΧΧ’Χ. Jerusalem: ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧͺ ΧΧΧ§ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ©ΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧ¨ΧΧͺ.
Eichler, Raanan. 2020. βBoring philology: The meaning of zdh in the Siloam inscription.β Palestine Exploration Quarterly 152: 44β52.
Hornkohl, Aaron. (forthcoming 2023?). The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers and University of Cambridge.
Huehnergard, John. 2015. βBiblical Hebrew Nominal Patterns.β In Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett, edited by Jeremy M. Hutton, and Aaron D. Rubin, 25β64. Atlanta: SBL Press.
Kantor, Benjamin. 2020. βThe Development of the Hebrew wayyiqαΉol (βwaw Consecutiveβ) Verbal Form in Light of Greek and Latin Transcriptions of Hebrew.β In Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions, edited by Geoffrey Khan, and Aaron Hornkohl, 55β132. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
Lambdin, Thomas O., and John Huehnergard. 2000. The Historical Grammar of Classical Hebrew. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
Smelik, Klaas A. D. 2011. βA Literary Analysis of the Shiloah (Siloam) Tunnel Inscription.β In On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, 101β110. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Suchard, Benjamin D. 2020. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew vowels: Including a Concise Historical Morphology. Leiden: Brill.
Ussishkin, David. 1969. βOn the Shorter Inscription from the βTomb of the Royal Stewardβ.β Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 196: 16β22.
Rendsburg, Gary A. and William M. Schniedewind. 2010. βThe Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives.β Israel Exploration Journal 60: 188β203.
I must also thank Jo Ann Hackett, who trained me in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy. Of course, any errors in the above are my own.
Responses