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 โ€œCity of David,โ€ which is on the southeastern edge of the Old City of Jerusalem. The inscription commemorates the final moments of the excavation of Hezekiahโ€™s 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. 22:9โ€“11; 2 Chr. 32:3โ€“5, 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 ื“ื‘ืจ] ื”ื ืงื‘ื” โ€˜the matter of the breakthroughโ€™ (Ahฬฃituv 2008, 19โ€“22). The inscription reads as follows:

Original Text

๐คƒ๐ค๐ค“] ๐ค„๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„. ๐ค…๐ค†๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค„. ๐คƒ๐ค๐ค“. ๐ค„๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„. ๐ค๐ค๐ค…๐คƒ [๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค๐คŒ ๐คŒ๐ค๐ค๐คŒ ๐ค€๐ค•

๐ค„๐ค‚๐ค“๐ค†๐ค. ๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค…. ๐ค…๐ค๐ค๐ค…๐คƒ. ๐ค”๐ค‹๐ค”. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค•. ๐ค‹๐ค„๐ค[๐ค’๐ค ๐ค๐ค”๐คŒ]๐ค. ๐ค’๐ค‹. ๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค’

๐ค“]๐ค€ ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค…. ๐คŠ๐ค‰. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค•. ๐ค†๐คƒ๐ค„. ๐ค๐ค‘๐ค“. ๐คŒ๐ค‰๐คŒ๐ค[] ๐ค…๐คŒ[๐ค”๐คŒ]๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค…๐ค๐ค‰๐คŒ. ๐ค„

๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„. ๐ค„๐คŠ๐ค…. ๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค๐คŒ. ๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค‹๐ค’๐ค“๐ค•. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค…. ๐ค‚๐ค“๐ค†๐ค. ๐ค๐ค‹ [๐ค‚]๐ค“๐ค†๐ค. ๐ค…๐ค‰๐ค‹๐คŠ๐ค…

๐ค„๐คŒ๐ค‰๐คŒ. ๐คŒ๐ค. ๐ค„๐คŒ๐ค…๐ค‘๐ค€. ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค„๐ค๐ค“๐คŠ๐ค„. ๐ค๐คŒ๐ค€๐ค•๐ค‰[๐คŒ] ๐ค€๐ค‹๐ค. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค„. ๐ค…๐คŒ[

๐ค€ ๐ค•. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค„. ๐ค‚๐ค๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‘๐ค“. ๐ค๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค[๐คŒ

Transcription with Audio (Ancient Script)

Ancient ScriptHistorical PronunciationTranslation

๐คƒ๐ค๐ค“] ๐ค„๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„

daหˆbar han-naqibหˆbaห

โ€˜The matter of the
boring throughโ€™

๐ค…๐ค†๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค„. ๐คƒ๐ค๐ค“. ๐ค„๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„

wa-หˆzeห haหˆjaห
daหˆbar han-naqibหˆbaห

โ€˜And this is the matter
of the boring throughโ€™

๐ค๐ค๐ค…๐คƒ [๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค๐คŒ ๐คŒ๐ค๐ค๐คŒ ๐ค€๐ค•] ๐ค„๐ค‚๐ค“๐ค†๐ค

ba-หˆส•awd haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหˆbiหm
miniหหˆpiหm หˆส”it hag-garหˆzinn

โ€˜While the diggers were
swinging the axeโ€™

๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค…

หˆส”iหสƒ หˆส”il riหˆส•eหw

โ€˜a man toward
his companionโ€™

๐ค…๐ค๐ค๐ค…๐คƒ. ๐ค”๐ค‹๐ค”. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค•. ๐ค‹๐ค„๐ค[๐ค’๐ค]

wa-ba-หˆส•awd สƒaหˆloหสƒ
ส”amหˆmoหt la-hinnaหˆqib

โ€˜and with three cubits
left to be bored throughโ€™

๐ค๐ค”๐คŒ]๐ค. ๐ค’๐ค‹. ๐ค€๐ค”

niสƒหˆmaส• หˆqoหl หˆส”iหสƒ

โ€˜the voice of a man
was heardโ€™

๐ค’[๐ค“]๐ค€. ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค…

qoหหˆriส” หˆส”il riหˆส•eหw

โ€˜calling out to
his companionโ€™

๐คŠ๐ค‰. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค•. ๐ค†๐คƒ๐ค„. ๐ค๐ค‘๐ค“

หˆkiห haหˆjaหt ziหหˆdaห baแนฃ-หˆแนฃuหr

โ€˜for there was a
misalignment in the rockโ€™

๐คŒ๐ค‰๐คŒ๐ค[] ๐ค…๐คŒ[๐ค”๐คŒ]๐ค€๐ค‹

mij-jaหˆmiหn wa-miษฌ-ษฌiหˆmoหl

โ€˜on the right
and the leftโ€™

๐ค…๐ค๐ค‰๐คŒ. ๐ค„๐ค๐ค’๐ค๐ค„

wa-ba-หˆjoหm hinnaqiหˆbah

โ€˜and on the day of its
being bored throughโ€™

๐ค„๐คŠ๐ค…. ๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค๐คŒ.

hikหˆkuห haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหˆbiหm

โ€˜the diggers struckโ€™

๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค‹๐ค’๐ค“๐ค•. ๐ค“๐ค๐ค….

หˆส”iหสƒ la-qหˆrat riหˆส•eหw

โ€˜a man to meet
his companionโ€™

๐ค‚๐ค“๐ค†๐ค. ๐ค๐ค‹ [๐ค‚]๐ค“๐ค†๐ค

garหˆzinn หˆส•al หˆgarzinn

โ€˜axe upon axeโ€™

๐ค…๐ค‰๐ค‹๐คŠ๐ค… ๐ค„๐คŒ๐ค‰๐คŒ

wa-jiหˆlikuห ham-หˆmajm

โ€˜and the water flowedโ€™

๐คŒ๐ค. ๐ค„๐คŒ๐ค…๐ค‘๐ค€. ๐ค€๐ค‹. ๐ค„๐ค๐ค“๐คŠ๐ค„

min ham-mawหˆแนฃaส”
หˆส”il hab-bariหˆkaห

โ€˜from the outlet
to the poolโ€™

๐ค๐คŒ๐ค€๐ค•๐ค‰[๐คŒ ๐ค…]๐ค€๐ค‹๐ค. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค„

ba-miส”aหˆtajm
wa-หˆส”alp ส”amหˆmaห

โ€˜at two hundred
and one thousand cubitsโ€™

๐ค…๐คŒ[๐ค€]๐ค•. ๐ค€๐คŒ๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‰๐ค„. ๐ค‚๐ค๐ค„. ๐ค„๐ค‘๐ค“

wa-miหˆส”at ส”amหˆmaห
haหˆjaห หˆgubh haแนฃ-หˆแนฃuหr

โ€˜and one hundred cubits
was the height of the rockโ€™

๐ค๐ค‹. ๐ค“๐ค€๐ค”. ๐ค„๐ค‡๐ค‘๐ค[๐คŒ

หˆส•al หˆroหสƒ haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหˆbiหm

โ€˜above the heads
of the diggers.โ€™

Transcription with Audio (Modern Script)

Modern ScriptModern PointedTranslation

ื“ื‘ืจ] ื”ื ืงื‘ื”

ื“ึฐึผื‘ึทืจ] ื”ึทื ึฐึผืงึดื‘ึธึผื”

โ€˜The matter of the
boring throughโ€™

ื•ื–ื”. ื”ื™ื”. ื“ื‘ืจ. ื”ื ืงื‘ื”

ื•ึฐื–ึถื”. ื”ึธื™ึธื”. ื“ึฐึผื‘ึทืจ. ื”ึทื ึฐึผืงึดื‘ึธึผื”

โ€˜And this is the matter
of the boring throughโ€™

ื‘ืขื•ื“ [ื”ื—ืฆื‘ื ืžื ืคื ืืช] ื”ื’ืจื–ืŸ

ื‘ึฐึผืขื•ึนื“ [ื”ึทื—ึนืฆึฐื‘ึดื ืžึฐื ึดืคึดื ืึถืช] ื”ึทื’ึทึผืจึฐื–ึถืŸ

โ€˜While the diggers were
swinging the axeโ€™

ืืฉ. ืืœ. ืจืขื•

ืึดืฉื. ืึถืœ. ืจึตืขื•ึน

โ€˜a man toward
his companionโ€™

ื•ื‘ืขื•ื“. ืฉืœืฉ. ืืžืช. ืœื”ื [ืงื‘

ื•ึผื‘ึฐืขื•ึนื“. ืฉึธืืœึนืฉื. ืึทืžึนึผืช. ืœึฐื”ึดื ึผึธ[ืงึตื‘

โ€˜and with three cubits
left to be bored throughโ€™

ื ืฉืž]ืข. ืงืœ. ืืฉ

ื ึดืฉึฐืืžึท]ืข. ืงึนืœ. ืึดืฉื.

โ€˜the voice of a man
was heardโ€™

ืงืจ]ื. ืืœ. ืจืขื•

. ืงึนืจึต]ื. ืึถืœ. ืจึตืขื•ึน

โ€˜calling out to
his companionโ€™

ื›ื™. ื”ื™ืช. ื–ื“ื”. ื‘ืฆืจ

ื›ึดึผื™. ื”ึธื™ึธืช. ื–ึดื“ึธื”. ื‘ึทึผืฆึปึผืจ

โ€˜for there was a
misalignment in the rockโ€™

ืžื™ืžืŸ[] ื•ืž[ืฉืž]ืืœ

ืžึดื™ึธึผืžึดืŸ[] ื•ึผืžึด[ืฉึฐึผื‚ืžึน]ืืœ

โ€˜on the right
and the leftโ€™

ื•ื‘ื™ื. ื”ื ืงื‘ื”

ื•ึผื‘ึฐื™ึนื. ื”ึดื ึธึผืงึฐื‘ึธื”ึผ

โ€˜and on the day of its
being bored throughโ€™

ื”ื›ื•. ื”ื—ืฆื‘ื

ื”ึดื›ึผื•ึผ. ื”ึทื—ึนืฆึฐื‘ึดื

โ€˜the diggers struckโ€™

ืืฉ. ืœืงืจืช. ืจืขื•

ืึดืฉื. ืœึดืงึฐืจึทืช. ืจึตืขื•ึน

โ€˜a man to meet
his companionโ€™

ื’ืจื–ืŸ. ืขืœ [ื’]ืจื–ืŸ

ื’ึทึผืจึฐื–ึถืŸ. ืขึทืœ [ื’ึทึผ]ืจึฐื–ึถืŸ

โ€˜axe upon axeโ€™

ื•ื™ืœื›ื• ื”ืžื™ื

ื•ึทื™ึตึผืœึฐื›ื•ึผ ื”ึทืžึทึผื™ึดื

โ€˜and the water flowedโ€™

ืžืŸ. ื”ืžื•ืฆื. ืืœ. ื”ื‘ืจื›ื”

ืžึดืŸ. ื”ึทืžึผื•ึนืฆึธื. ืึถืœ. ื”ึทื‘ึฐึผืจึตื›ึธื”.

โ€˜from the outlet
to the poolโ€™

ื‘ืžืืชื™[ื ื•]ืืœืฃ. ืืžื”

ื‘ึฐึผืžึธืืชึทื™ึด[ื ื•ึฐ]ืึถืœึถืฃ. ืึทืžึธึผื”

โ€˜at two hundred
and one thousand cubitsโ€™

ื•ืž[ื]ืช. ืืžื”. ื”ื™ื”. ื’ื‘ื”. ื”ืฆืจ

ื•ึผืžึฐ[ืึท]ืช. ืึทืžึธึผื”. ื”ึธื™ึธื”. ื’ึนึผื‘ึทื”ึผ. ื”ึทืฆึปึผืจ

โ€˜and one hundred cubits
was the height of the rockโ€™

ืขืœ. ืจืืฉ. ื”ื—ืฆื‘[ื

ืขึทืœ. ืจึนืืฉื. ื”ึทื—ึนืฆึฐื‘ึด[ื

โ€˜above the heads
of the diggers.โ€™

Commentary

ื”ื ืงื‘ื”

There are several possible nominal patterns that may fit this word: */naqibbaห/ (โ‰ˆ ื ึฐืงึดื‘ึผึธื”) in the qaแนญillaห pattern, */naqiหbaห/ (โ‰ˆ ื ึฐืงึดื™ื‘ึธื”) in the qaแนญiหlaห pattern, or */naqabaห/ (โ‰ˆ ื ึฐืงึธื‘ึธื”) in the *qaแนญalaห pattern. Ahฬฃituv appears to favor */naqibbaห/, the same pattern found in nouns like ืฉืึฐืžึดื˜ึผึธื” โ€˜releaseโ€™ and ื›ึผึฐืœึดืžึผึธื” โ€˜humiliationโ€™ (Ahฬฃituv 2008, 22โ€“23).

There can be some confusion in the rendering of the root ื ืงืดื‘ throughout this inscription. While Ahฬฃituv translates it as โ€˜breakthroughโ€™, a rendering like โ€˜breakthroughโ€™ or โ€˜breachโ€™ can be a bit problematic depending on how one understands it. In the Hebrew Bible, a โ€˜breakthroughโ€™ or โ€˜breachโ€™ of a wall or something like that is typically indicated by the root ืคืจืดืฅ: e.g., โ€ื•ื™ื‘ืื• (ื›ืชื™ื‘) ื•ึทื™ึผึธื‘ึนืึ™ (ืงืจื™) ื™ึฐืจึฃื•ึผืฉืึธืœึทึ”ึดื ื•ึทื™ึผึดืคึฐืจึนืฅึฉ ื‘ึผึฐื—ื•ึนืžึทึจืช ื™ึฐืจื•ึผืฉืึธืœึทึœึดื ื‘ึผึฐืฉืึทึคืขึทืจ ืึถืคึฐืจึทึ™ื™ึดืึ™ ืขึทื“ึพืฉืึทึฃืขึทืจ ื”ึทืคึผึดื ึผึธึ”ื” ืึทืจึฐื‘ึผึทึฅืข ืžึตืึ–ื•ึนืช ืึทืžึผึธึฝื”ืƒ โ€˜and he came to Jerusalem and breached the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Gate of the Corner, four hundred cubitsโ€™ (2 Kgs. 14.13). So with the root ืคืจืดืฅ, one should have in mind something more like a wall that gets breached through so an army could enter in.

The root ื ืงืดื‘, on the other hand, is much more like the action of a needle when sewing. It indicates a sort of โ€˜piercingโ€™ or a โ€˜boring throughโ€™ rather than a โ€˜breachโ€™: e.g., โ€ ื•ึทื™ึผึดืงึผึทึžื— ื™ึฐื”ื•ึนื™ึธื“ึธึคืข ื”ึทื›ึผึนื”ึตืŸึ™ ืึฒืจึฃื•ึนืŸ ืึถื—ึธึ”ื“ ื•ึทื™ึผึดืงึผึนึฅื‘ ื—ึนึ–ืจ ื‘ึผึฐื“ึทืœึฐืชึผึ‘ื•ึน โ€˜and Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bore a hole in its lidโ€™ (2 Kgs. 12.10); โ€ืขึทืชึผึธึกื” ื”ึดื ึผึตึฃื” ื‘ึธื˜ึทึฃื—ึฐืชึผึธ ืœึผึฐืšึธึก ืขึทืœึพืžึดืฉืึฐืขึถื ึถืชึฉ ื”ึทืงึผึธื ึถึจื” ื”ึธืจึธืฆึคื•ึผืฅ ื”ึทื–ึผึถื”ึ™ ืขึทืœึพืžึดืฆึฐืจึทึ”ื™ึดื ืึฒืฉืึถึจืจ ื™ึดืกึผึธืžึตึฅืšึฐ ืึดื™ืฉืึ™ ืขึธืœึธึ”ื™ื• ื•ึผื‘ึธึฅื ื‘ึฐื›ึทืคึผึ–ื•ึน ื•ึผื ึฐืงึธื‘ึธึ‘ื”ึผ โ€˜and 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 itโ€™ (2 Kgs. 18.21); ื•ึฐื”ึทึจืžึผึดืฉื‚ึฐืชึผึทื›ึผึตึ”ืจ ืžึดืฉื‚ึฐืชึผึทื›ึผึตึ–ืจ ืึถืœึพืฆึฐืจึฅื•ึนืจ ื ึธืงึฝื•ึผื‘ืƒ โ€˜and the one who earns wages [will be] as one who earns wages into a money bag with a hole in itโ€™ (Hag. 1.6); โ€ื”ึฒืชึธืฉื‚ึดึฃื™ื ืึทื’ึฐืžึฃื•ึนืŸ ื‘ึผึฐืึทืคึผึ‘ื•ึน ื•ึผึื‘ึฐื—ึ—ื•ึนื—ึท ืชึผึดืงึผึฅื•ึนื‘ ืœึถึฝื—ึฑื™ื•ึนืƒ โ€˜can you put a rope in his nose, or with a hook pierce his jaw?โ€™ (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 ื ืงืดื‘ 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.

ื‘ืขื•ื“

Note that the presence of vav in this word likely indicates a preserved diphthong */ba-ส•awd/. It should be contrasted with ื•ื‘ื™ื below, which reflects a contracted diphthong: i.e., */wa-ba-joหm/.

[ื”ื—ืฆื‘ื ืžื ืคื ืืช]

Various emendations have been suggested for this missing passage. Presumably, the verb has to have ื’ืจื–ืŸ โ€˜axeโ€™ as its object. There are several verbs that could apply here. The verb ื”ึตื ึดื™ืฃ-ื™ึธื ึดื™ืฃ โ€˜wield (an axe); wave (an axe)โ€™ is found in similar contexts in the Hebrew Bible: โ€ื”ึฒื™ึดืชึฐืคึผึธืึตืจึ™ ื”ึทื’ึผึทืจึฐื–ึถึ”ืŸ ืขึทึ–ืœ ื”ึทื—ึนืฆึตึฃื‘ ื‘ึผึ‘ื•ึน ืึดืึพื™ึดืชึฐื’ึผึทื“ึผึตึคืœ ื”ึทืžึผึทืฉื‚ึผื•ึนืจึ™ ืขึทืœึพืžึฐื ึดื™ืคึ”ื•ึน โ€˜will the axe boast over the one who hews with it, or the saw over the one who wields it?โ€™ (Isa. 10.15); โ€ืœึนืึพืชึธื ึดึฅื™ืฃ ืขึฒืœึตื™ื”ึถึ–ื ื‘ึผึทืจึฐื–ึถึฝืœืƒ โ€˜you shall wield no iron tool on themโ€™ (Deut. 27.5). Ahฬฃituvโ€™s suggestion of the verb ื”ึตื ึดื™ืฃ-ื™ึธื ึดื™ืฃ โ€˜wield (an axe); wave (an axe)โ€™ does seem plausible (2008, 23).

Alternatively, the verb ื ึดื“ึผึทื— or ื ึธื“ึทื— โ€˜to swing (an axe)โ€™, which appears once in the nifสฟal 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: โ€ื•ึฐื ึดื“ึผึฐื—ึธึจื” ื™ึธื“ึคื•ึน ื‘ึทื’ึผึทืจึฐื–ึถืŸึ™ ืœึดื›ึฐืจึนึฃืช ื”ึธืขึตึ”ืฅ โ€˜and his hand swings an axe to cut down the treeโ€™ (Deut. 19.5). In the other example, the direct object of the axe has no preposition: โ€ืœึนึฝืึพืชึทืฉืึฐื—ึดึคื™ืช ืึถืชึพืขึตืฆึธื”ึผึ™ ืœึดื ึฐื“ึผึนึคื—ึท ืขึธืœึธื™ื•ึ™ ื’ึผึทืจึฐื–ึถึ”ืŸ โ€˜you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe on themโ€™ (Deut. 20.19). Note also that the Tiberian nifสฟal form could equally be vocalised as a qal: i.e., ื•ึฐื ึดื“ึผึฐื—ึธื” (nifสฟal) vs. ื•ึฐื ึธื“ึฐื—ึธื” (qal). This is, in fact, what we find in the Samaritan tradition: ื•ื ื“ื— [wหˆnษ‘หdษ‘]. Therefore, we could also restore in the empty space [ื”ื—ืฆื‘ื ื ื“ื—ื ืืช] = [haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหˆbiหm noหdiหˆฤงiหm ส”it] with a similar meaning.

From a syntactic perspective, the prepositional phrase ื‘ืขื•ื“ โ€˜in; while (still)โ€™ can be followed by a simple noun phrase expressing a duration of time (e.g., ื‘ึผึฐืขึฃื•ึนื“ ื€ ืฉืึฐืœึนึฃืฉืึถืช ื™ึธืžึดึ—ื™ื ื™ึดืฉื‚ึผึธึคื ืคึทืจึฐืขึนื”ึ™ ืึถืชึพืจึนืืฉืึถึ”ืšึธ โ€˜in three days, Pharaoh will lift up your headโ€™ (Gen. 40.13)), by a verbal clause made up of a noun followed by a participle modifier (e.g., ื‘ึผึฐืขื•ึนื“ึ™ ื”ึทื™ึผึถึฃืœึถื“ ื—ึทึ”ื™ ืฆึทึ–ืžึฐืชึผึดื™ ื•ึธึฝืึถื‘ึฐื›ึผึถึ‘ื” โ€˜while the child was still alive, I fasted and weptโ€™ (2 Sam. 12.22)), or by a verbless clause (e.g., โ€ ื‘ึผึฐืขึฃื•ึนื“ ืฉืึทึญื“ึผึทื™ ืขึดืžึผึธื“ึดึ‘ื™ โ€˜when Shaddai is with me…โ€™ (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 ืืช. Ahฬฃituv compares phrases with just ืขื•ึนื“ in the Hebrew Bible (2008, 23): e.g., ืขึฅื•ึนื“ ื”ึธืขึธึ›ื ืžึฐื–ึทื‘ึผึฐื—ึดึฅื™ื โ€˜the people were still sacrificingโ€™ (1 Kgs. 22.44); ื•ึฐืขึจื•ึนื“ ืึฒื ึดึคื™ ืžึฐื“ึทื‘ึผึตืจึ™ ื•ึผืžึดืชึฐืคึผึทืœึผึตึ”ืœ โ€˜and while I was still speaking and prayingโ€™ (Dan. 9.20). Overall, however, the syntactic construction here is much more similar to that found in 2 Sam. 12.22 cited above.

ื”ื’ืจื–ืŸ

Note that this word has a final seghol in the Tiberian tradition (i.e., ื’ึผึทืจึฐื–ึถืŸ โ€˜axeโ€™), even though nouns with ultimate stress tend much more to terminate with แนฃere. This is probably because the noun pattern ended with gemination at an earlier stage of development: i.e., */garหˆzinn/

ืจืขื•

As Ahฬฃituv suggests (2008, 23), the Masoretic form ืจึตืขื•ึน is likely due to analogy. At an earlier stage, the vav was probably consonantal after the contraction of the diphthong: i.e., */riส•ayhu(ห)/ โ†’ */riส•eหhu(ห)/ โ†’ */riส•eห(h)u(ห)/ โ†’ */riส•eหw/.

ื‘ืขื•ื“ ืฉืœืฉ ืืžืช ืœื”ื [ืงื‘

Syntactically, this phrase may be compared with biblical phrases like ื‘ึผึฐืขึฅื•ึนื“ ื›ึผึดื‘ึฐืจึทืชึพืึถึ–ืจึถืฅ ืœึธื‘ึนึฃื ืึถืคึฐืจึธึ‘ืชึธื” ื•ึธืึถืงึฐื‘ึผึฐืจึถึคื”ึธ ืฉืึผึธืึ™ ื‘ึผึฐื“ึถึฃืจึถืšึฐ ืึถืคึฐืจึธึ”ืช โ€˜when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, I buried [her] there on the road to Ephrathโ€™ (Gen. 48.7) and ื‘ึผึฐืขึจื•ึนื“ ืฉืึฐืœึนืฉืึธึคื” ื—ึณื“ึธืฉืึดื™ืึ™ ืœึทืงึผึธืฆึดึ”ื™ืจ ื•ึฐื”ึดืžึฐื˜ึทืจึฐืชึผึดื™ึ™ ืขึทืœึพืขึดึฃื™ืจ ืึถื—ึธึ”ืช โ€˜while there were still three months to go for the harvest, I would rain on one cityโ€™ (Amos 4.7).

ืœื”ื [ืงื‘

The nifสฟal infinitive form */lahinnaqib/ is probably intended here to indicate passive action of the rock or the hole being bore through.

ื”ื™ืช

Note that the Tiberian form ื”ึธื™ึฐืชึธื” exhibits affix pleonasm, namely the doubling up of a feminine suffix. Both ืช- and ื”- are feminine suffixes in Hebrew. At an early stage of the language, all 3FS verbs in the qaแนญal form terminated with */-at/: e.g., */kataba/ โ€˜he wroteโ€™, but cf. */katabat/ โ€˜she wroteโ€™. Over time, this final */-t/ elided and left behind a long vowel: i.e., */katabat/ โ†’ */kataba(t)/ โ†’ */katabaห/ โ€˜she wroteโ€™. In III-y roots, however, this final */-t/ was preserved, likely to maintain a distinction between 3MS and 3FS: e.g., */bakaja/ โ€˜he weptโ€™ vs. */bakajat/ โ€˜she weptโ€™ โ†’ */bakaห/ โ€˜he weptโ€™ vs. X = ? โ€˜she weptโ€™. 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 */-aห/: i.e., (i) */bakajat/ โ†’ (ii) */bakaหt/ โ†’ โ†’ (iii) */bakataห/ โ†’ ื‘ึผึธื›ึฐืชึธื” (in analogy to forms like */katabaห/ โ†’ ื›ึผึธืชึฐื‘ึธื”). There are some forms in the Bible, however, that did not add this pleonastic */-aห/, essentially stopping at stage (ii) above: e.g., ื•ึฐืขึธืฉื‚ึธืชึ™ โ€˜so that it will produceโ€™ (Lev. 25.21); โ€ื•ื”ื™ืช (ื›ืชื™ื‘) ื•ึฐึฝื”ึธื™ึฐืชึธึžื” (ืงืจื™) โ€˜and shall beโ€™ (2 Kgs. 9.37). The form ื”ื™ืช in this inscription also likely represents just stage (ii) in the development: i.e., */hajaหt/.

ื–ื“ื”

The word ื–ื“ื” does not occur in the Bible. It has been called โ€œthe crux of the Shiloahฬฃ (Siloam) inscription.โ€ Historically, it has been interpreted as โ€˜fissureโ€™, โ€˜crackโ€™, โ€˜voidโ€™, โ€˜cavityโ€™, etc. From the perspective of etymology, various roots were suggested. The root ื–ื™ืดื“/ื–ื•ืดื“, which is associated with โ€˜boilingโ€™ was regarded as possibly something that could relate to โ€˜burstingโ€™ and then โ€˜something brokenโ€™. Another view takes the root as ื–ื“ืดื™, which has the meaning of โ€˜emptyโ€™. Others took the view that the root is ื–ื ืดื“, which is not found elsewhere in Hebrew but is attested in Arabic and Syriac with a possible original meaning of โ€˜being narrowโ€™. Finally, some have connected Ugaritic dฬฑd, used for โ€˜abodeโ€™ or โ€˜dwelling placeโ€™, interpreted thus to mean โ€˜cavityโ€™ or โ€˜grottoโ€™. Alternative interpretations of the noun ื–ื“ื” in the Siloam inscription also exist, however, such as โ€˜ductโ€™, โ€˜excessโ€™, โ€˜obstacleโ€™, โ€˜overlapโ€™, โ€˜errorโ€™, โ€˜deviationโ€™, โ€˜aimingโ€™, โ€˜echoโ€™, โ€˜attackโ€™, โ€˜wideningโ€™, โ€˜drippingโ€™, 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 โ€˜errorโ€™ or โ€˜deviationโ€™ and proposes the rendering โ€˜misalignmentโ€™. 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 โ€˜on the right and on the leftโ€™ 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 ื–ื™ืดื“/ื–ื•ืดื“, which conventionally is interpreted as meaning โ€˜boilingโ€™. He does suggest, however, that this root can also mean โ€˜to do wrong, to sinโ€™: e.g., ื•ึทืชึผึธึจืขึทื“ ื‘ึผึธื”ึถึœื ืœึทื”ึฒืฉืึดื™ื‘ึธึฃื ืึถืœึพืชึผื•ึนืจึธืชึถึ—ืšึธ ื•ึฐื”ึตึจืžึผึธื” ื”ึตื–ึดึœื™ื“ื•ึผ ื•ึฐืœึนืึพืฉืึธืžึฐืขึคื•ึผ ืœึฐืžึดืฆึฐื•ึนืชึถึ™ื™ืšึธึ™ ื•ึผื‘ึฐืžึดืฉืึฐืคึผึธื˜ึถึฃื™ืšึธ ื—ึธึฝื˜ึฐืื•ึผึพื‘ึธึ”ื โ€˜and 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 sinโ€™ (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. 17.11โ€“13; Ps. 119.21). Therefore, it is plausible that ื–ื“ื” means โ€˜misalignmentโ€™ and is from the root ื–ื•ืดื“ or ื–ื™ืดื“ (Eichler 2020).

As far as the pronunciation goes, it could be something like (i) */zaddaห/, (ii) */ziddaห/, (iii) */zaหdaห/, (iv) */ziหdaห/, or (v) */zuหdaห/. Nouns with middle gemination like patterns (i) and (ii) in the Hebrew Bible usually come from geminate or II-n roots: e.g., ื—ึดื˜ึผึธื” โ€˜wheatโ€™ (from ื—ื ืดื˜); ืžึดืœึผึธื” โ€˜wordโ€™ (from ืžืœืดืœ); ื›ึผึทืœึผึธื” โ€˜brideโ€™ (from ื›ืœืดืœ). 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 ื–ึธื“ึธื”. Patterns (iv) and (v) are what one would expect for a II-w/y root. Therefore, though something like */zaหdaห/ as a substantivized participle is possible, we prefer to go with */ziหdaห/ as a more common noun pattern for II-y roots.

ื•ื‘ื™ื

Note the lack of a diphthong by the absence of vav: i.e., ื•ื‘ื™ื = */wa-ba-หˆjoหm/ (*/jawm/ โ†’ */joหm/). It is difficult to determine why the diphthong was maintained in ื‘ืขื•ื“ = */ba-ส•awd/ 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 /oห/ vowel, whereas the dental stop /d/ would have been more distinct and thus serve to preserve the preceding diphthong.

ื”ื ืงื‘ื”

The spelling ื”ื ืงื‘ื” be vocalised either as the definite article before the same noun as above (i.e., */han-naqiหˆbaห/ โ€˜the boring throughโ€™) or as an infinitive of the nifสฟal binyan with a 3FS suffix (i.e., */hinnaqiหˆbah/ โ€˜its being bored throughโ€™). In the Hebrew Bible, it is much more common for the phrase ื‘ึผึฐื™ื•ึนื โ€˜on the day of; whenโ€™ 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., ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ›ื•ึนื ืึฒื›ึธืœึฐืšึธึฅ โ€˜in the day that you eatโ€™ (Gen. 2.17); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ›ื•ึนื ืจึฐืึนืชึฐืšึธึฅ โ€˜on the day you seeโ€™ (Exod. 10.28); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ—ื•ึนื ื”ึทื›ึผึนืชึดึคื™ โ€˜on the day that I struck downโ€™ (Num. 8.17); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฅื•ึนื ืฉืึธืžึฐืขึ–ื•ึน โ€˜on the day that he hearsโ€™ (Num. 30.8); ื‘ึผึฐื™ื•ึนืึ™ ื”ึทื ึฐื—ึดื™ืœึฃื•ึน โ€˜on the day when he assignsโ€™ (Deut. 21.16); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ–ื•ึนื ื”ึดืœึผึธืงึฐื—ึฝื•ึนืƒ โ€˜on the day of its being taken awayโ€™ (1 Sam. 21.7); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ–ื•ึนื ื”ึตืขึธึฝืฉื‚ื•ึนืชึ‘ื•ึน โ€˜on the day of its being madeโ€™ (Ezek. 43.18). There are, however, some examples of the latter: e.g., ื‘ึฐื™ื•ึนืึพื”ึทืžึผึทื’ึผึตืคึธึ–ื” โ€˜on the day of the plagueโ€™ (Num. 25.18); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฅื•ึนื ื”ึทืงึผึธื”ึธึฝืœืƒ โ€˜on the day of the assemblyโ€™ (Deut. 9.10); ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฅื•ึนื ื”ึทืฉืึผึธึฝืœึถื’ืƒ โ€˜on a day in which snow had fallenโ€™ (2 Sam. 23.20). While both are possible, given the greater frequency of the infinitive in such constructions, the infinitive construct of the nifสฟal form with a 3FS suffix is thus more likely for the phrase ื•ื‘ื™ื ื”ื ืงื‘ื” in the inscription.

ืœืงืจืช

In the Hebrew Bible, this would be written as ืœึดืงึฐืจึทืืช โ€˜to meetโ€™ with a quiescent สพalef, as from the root ืงืจืดื. It has been suggested that the form of the Siloam inscription reflects an infinitive like */lV-qroหt/ (โ‰ˆ ืœึดืงึฐืจึนืช), as from the root ืงืจืดื™. More recently, Hornkohl has suggested that the original form of the Tiberian infinitive ืœึดืงึฐืจึทืืช โ€˜to meetโ€™ was actually something like */lV-qirส”at/ (โ‰ˆ ืœึฐืงึดืจึฐืึทืช), similar to other infinitives of a similar pattern: e.g., โ€ืœึฐื™ึดืจึฐืึธึฃื” ืึนืชึดึ—ื™ ‘to fear me’ (Deut 4:10); โ€ืœึฐืจึดื‘ึฐืขึธึฃื” ืึนืชึธึ”ื”ึผ ‘to lie with it’ (Lev 20:16). At a relatively early stage of the language, the สพalef became quiescent in such an environment and syncope occurred: i.e., */lV-qirส”at/ โ†’ */lV-qirat/ โ†’ */lV-qrat/ (see Hornkohl 2023, ยง5). As such, the Siloam inscription form ืœืงืจืช may simply reflect the quiescence of the สพalef and should be vocalised as */lV-qrat/โ€”or more specifically */la-qrat/ given our acceptance that the preposition ืœึฐ was originally vocalised with a short /a/ vowel in Biblical Hebrew.

ื•ื™ืœื›ื•

Before the Second Temple period, it is unlikely that gemination of the prefix consonant was a feature of vav + yiqแนญol for narrative past (see Kantor 2020). As far as stress goes, given the penultimate stress of pausal forms like ื•ึทื™ึผึตืœึตึ‘ื›ื•ึผ [vaษŸ-ษŸeหหˆleหฯ‡uห] โ€˜and went their wayโ€™ (Gen. 14.12), we have stressed this word on the penultimate: i.e., *wa-jiหˆlikuห. This is based on the assumption that pausal forms in Tiberian can preserve the stress of an earlier stage of the language.

ื”ืžื•ืฆื

The orthography may suggest that the vav should be taken as consonantal or as a historical spelling of a collapsed diphthong. The final สพalef may also be consonantal or a historical spelling. As such, four pronunciations of this word are possible: i.e., */ham-mawแนฃaส”/; */ham-moหแนฃaส”/; */ham-mawแนฃaห/; */ham-moหแนฃaห/.

ื‘ืžืืชื™[ื] … ื•ืž[ื]ืช

Note that the historical form of the word ืžึตืึธื” is probably to be reconstructed as */miส”aห/. Even in the dual and construct, then, */miส”aห/ was probably the base: i.e., ืžืืชื™ื = */miส”aหˆtajm/ โ€˜two hundredโ€™ and ืžืืช = */miส”at/ โ€˜hundred (cstr.)โ€™. In the Tiberian tradition, however, the สพalef has quiesced, possibly reflecting a different original pattern: e.g., ืžึธืืชึทึฃื™ึดื โ€˜two hundredโ€™ (Gen. 11.23). The form ืžึธืืชึทื™ึดื might thus reflect an earlier pattern */maส”หˆtajm/.

ื’ื‘ื”

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/.

ืจืืฉ

It is highly unlikely that the สพalef in this word is consonantal, since the pronunciation of this word is ืจึนืืฉื = [ส€ฬŸoหoสƒ] in the Tiberian tradition. For a long /oห/ vowel to develop here, it assumes quiescence of the สพalef before the Canaanite shift (*/aห/ โ†’ */oห/), which likely occurred in the second millennium BCE: i.e., */raส”สƒ/ โ†’ */ra(ส”)สƒ/ โ†’ */raหสƒ/ โ†’ */roหสƒ/.

Bibliography:

Aแธฅituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes From the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions From the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta. Pages 19โ€“25.

Altman, Rochelle I. 2007. โ€œSome Notes on Inscriptional Genres and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription.โ€ Antiguo Oriente 5: 35โ€“88.

Ben-แธคayyim, Zeโ€™ev. 1977. ืขื‘ืจื™ืชื•ืืจืžื™ืชื ื•ืกื—ืฉื•ืžืจื•ืŸ: ืขืœืคื™ืชืขื•ื“ื•ืชืฉื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืœ ืคื”: ื›ืจืš ืจื‘ื™ืขื™. Jerusalem: ื”ื•ืฆืืช ื”ืืงื“ืžื™ื” ืœืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืขื‘ืจื™ืช.

Eichler, Raanan. 2020. โ€œBoring philology: The meaning of zdh in the Siloam inscription.โ€ Palestine Exploration Quarterly 152: 44โ€“52.

Hornkohl, Aaron. (forthcoming 2023?). The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers and University of Cambridge.

Huehnergard, John. 2015. โ€œBiblical Hebrew Nominal Patterns.โ€ 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, 25โ€“64. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Kantor, Benjamin. 2020. โ€œThe Development of the Hebrew wayyiqแนญol (โ€˜waw Consecutiveโ€™) Verbal Form in Light of Greek and Latin Transcriptions of Hebrew.โ€ In Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions, edited by Geoffrey Khan, and Aaron Hornkohl, 55โ€“132. 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. โ€œA Literary Analysis of the Shiloah (Siloam) Tunnel Inscription.โ€ In On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, 101โ€“110. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Suchard, Benjamin D. 2020. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew vowels: Including a Concise Historical Morphology. Leiden: Brill.

Ussishkin, David. 1969. โ€œOn the Shorter Inscription from the โ€˜Tomb of the Royal Stewardโ€™.โ€ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 196: 16โ€“22.

Rendsburg, Gary A. and William M. Schniedewind. 2010. โ€œThe Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives.โ€ Israel Exploration Journal 60: 188โ€“203.

I must also thank Jo Ann Hackett, who trained me in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy. Of course, any errors in the above are my own.

Related Articles

Responses

Leave a Reply