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 β€œCity of David,” which is on the southeastern edge of the Old City of Jerusalem. The inscription commemorates the final moments of the excavation of Hezekiah’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. 22:9–11; 2 Chr. 32:3–5, 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 Χ“Χ‘Χ¨] Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ” β€˜the matter of the breakthrough’ (AhΜ£ituv 2008, 19–22). The inscription reads as follows:

Original Text

𐀃𐀁𐀓] 𐀄𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄. 𐀅𐀆𐀄. 𐀄𐀉𐀄. 𐀃𐀁𐀓. 𐀄𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄. 𐀁𐀏𐀅𐀃 [π€„π€‡π€‘π€π€Œ 𐀌𐀍𐀐𐀌 𐀀𐀕

𐀄𐀂𐀓𐀆𐀍. 𐀀𐀔. 𐀀𐀋. 𐀓𐀏𐀅. 𐀅𐀁𐀏𐀅𐀃. 𐀔𐀋𐀔. π€€π€Œπ€•. 𐀋𐀄𐀍[𐀒𐀁 π€π€”π€Œ]𐀏. 𐀒𐀋. 𐀀𐀔. 𐀒

𐀓]𐀀 𐀀𐀋. 𐀓𐀏𐀅. π€Šπ€‰. 𐀄𐀉𐀕. 𐀆𐀃𐀄. 𐀁𐀑𐀓. π€Œπ€‰π€Œπ€[] π€…π€Œ[π€”π€Œ]𐀀𐀋. π€…π€π€‰π€Œ. 𐀄

𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄. π€„π€Šπ€…. π€„π€‡π€‘π€π€Œ. 𐀀𐀔. 𐀋𐀒𐀓𐀕. 𐀓𐀏𐀅. 𐀂𐀓𐀆𐀍. 𐀏𐀋 [𐀂]𐀓𐀆𐀍. π€…π€‰π€‹π€Šπ€…

π€„π€Œπ€‰π€Œ. 𐀌𐀍. π€„π€Œπ€…π€‘π€€. 𐀀𐀋. π€„π€π€“π€Šπ€„. π€π€Œπ€€π€•π€‰[𐀌] 𐀀𐀋𐀐. π€€π€Œπ€„. π€…π€Œ[

𐀀 𐀕. π€€π€Œπ€„. 𐀄𐀉𐀄. 𐀂𐀁𐀄. 𐀄𐀑𐀓. 𐀏𐀋. 𐀓𐀀𐀔. 𐀄𐀇𐀑𐀁[𐀌

Transcription with Audio (Ancient Script)

Ancient ScriptHistorical PronunciationTranslation

𐀃𐀁𐀓] 𐀄𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄

daˈbar han-naqibˈbaː

β€˜The matter of the
boring through’

𐀅𐀆𐀄. 𐀄𐀉𐀄. 𐀃𐀁𐀓. 𐀄𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄

wa-ˈzeː haˈjaː
daˈbar han-naqibˈbaː

β€˜And this is the matter
of the boring through’

𐀁𐀏𐀅𐀃 [π€„π€‡π€‘π€π€Œ 𐀌𐀍𐀐𐀌 𐀀𐀕] 𐀄𐀂𐀓𐀆𐀍

ba-ΛˆΚ•awd haΔ§-Δ§oːṣiˈbiːm
miniːˈpiːm ΛˆΚ”it hag-garˈzinn

β€˜While the diggers were
swinging the axe’

𐀀𐀔. 𐀀𐀋. 𐀓𐀏𐀅

ΛˆΚ”iːʃ ΛˆΚ”il riΛˆΚ•eːw

β€˜a man toward
his companion’

𐀅𐀁𐀏𐀅𐀃. 𐀔𐀋𐀔. π€€π€Œπ€•. 𐀋𐀄𐀍[𐀒𐀁]

wa-ba-ΛˆΚ•awd Κƒaˈloːʃ
Κ”amˈmoːt la-hinnaˈqib

β€˜and with three cubits
left to be bored through’

π€π€”π€Œ]𐀏. 𐀒𐀋. 𐀀𐀔

niΚƒΛˆmaΚ• ˈqoːl ΛˆΚ”iːʃ

β€˜the voice of a man
was heard’

𐀒[𐀓]𐀀. 𐀀𐀋. 𐀓𐀏𐀅

qoːˈriΚ” ΛˆΚ”il riΛˆΚ•eːw

β€˜calling out to
his companion’

π€Šπ€‰. 𐀄𐀉𐀕. 𐀆𐀃𐀄. 𐀁𐀑𐀓

ˈkiː haˈjaːt ziːˈdaː baṣ-ˈṣuːr

β€˜for there was a
misalignment in the rock’

π€Œπ€‰π€Œπ€[] π€…π€Œ[π€”π€Œ]𐀀𐀋

mij-jaˈmiːn wa-miɬ-ɬiˈmoːl

β€˜on the right
and the left’

π€…π€π€‰π€Œ. 𐀄𐀍𐀒𐀁𐀄

wa-ba-ˈjoːm hinnaqiˈbah

β€˜and on the day of its
being bored through’

π€„π€Šπ€…. π€„π€‡π€‘π€π€Œ.

hikˈkuː haħ-ħoːṣiˈbiːm

β€˜the diggers struck’

𐀀𐀔. 𐀋𐀒𐀓𐀕. 𐀓𐀏𐀅.

ΛˆΚ”iːʃ la-qˈrat riΛˆΚ•eːw

β€˜a man to meet
his companion’

𐀂𐀓𐀆𐀍. 𐀏𐀋 [𐀂]𐀓𐀆𐀍

garˈzinn ΛˆΚ•al ˈgarzinn

β€˜axe upon axe’

π€…π€‰π€‹π€Šπ€… π€„π€Œπ€‰π€Œ

wa-jiˈlikuː ham-ˈmajm

β€˜and the water flowed’

𐀌𐀍. π€„π€Œπ€…π€‘π€€. 𐀀𐀋. π€„π€π€“π€Šπ€„

min ham-mawˈṣaΚ”
ΛˆΚ”il hab-bariˈkaː

β€˜from the outlet
to the pool’

π€π€Œπ€€π€•π€‰[𐀌 𐀅]𐀀𐀋𐀐. π€€π€Œπ€„

ba-miΚ”aˈtajm
wa-ΛˆΚ”alp Κ”amˈmaː

β€˜at two hundred
and one thousand cubits’

π€…π€Œ[𐀀]𐀕. π€€π€Œπ€„. 𐀄𐀉𐀄. 𐀂𐀁𐀄. 𐀄𐀑𐀓

wa-miΛˆΚ”at Κ”amˈmaː
haˈjaː ˈgubh haṣ-ˈṣuːr

β€˜and one hundred cubits
was the height of the rock’

𐀏𐀋. 𐀓𐀀𐀔. 𐀄𐀇𐀑𐀁[𐀌

ΛˆΚ•al ˈroːʃ haΔ§-Δ§oːṣiˈbiːm

β€˜above the heads
of the diggers.’

Transcription with Audio (Modern Script)

Modern ScriptModern PointedTranslation

Χ“Χ‘Χ¨] Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ”

Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ¨] Χ”Φ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ”

β€˜The matter of the
boring through’

Χ•Χ–Χ”. Χ”Χ™Χ”. Χ“Χ‘Χ¨. Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ”

Χ•Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧ”. Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧ”. Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ¨. Χ”Φ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ”

β€˜And this is the matter
of the boring through’

Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“ [החצבם מנ׀ם אΧͺ] Χ”Χ’Χ¨Χ–ΧŸ

Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“ [הַחֹצְבִם מְנִ׀ִם א֢Χͺ] Χ”Φ·Χ’Φ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧŸ

β€˜While the diggers were
swinging the axe’

אש. אל. Χ¨Χ’Χ•

אִשׁ. א֢ל. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Χ•ΦΉ

β€˜a man toward
his companion’

Χ•Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“. שלש. אמΧͺ. ΧœΧ”Χ [Χ§Χ‘

Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“. שָׁלֹשׁ. אַמֹּΧͺ. ΧœΦ°Χ”Φ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈ[Χ§Φ΅Χ‘

β€˜and with three cubits
left to be bored through’

נשמ]ג. קל. אש

נִשְׁמַ]ג. קֹל. אִשׁ.

β€˜the voice of a man
was heard’

Χ§Χ¨]א. אל. Χ¨Χ’Χ•

. Χ§ΦΉΧ¨Φ΅]א. א֢ל. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Χ•ΦΉ

β€˜calling out to
his companion’

Χ›Χ™. Χ”Χ™Χͺ. Χ–Χ“Χ”. Χ‘Χ¦Χ¨

Χ›Φ΄ΦΌΧ™. Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧͺ. Χ–Φ΄Χ“ΦΈΧ”. Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¦Φ»ΦΌΧ¨

β€˜for there was a
misalignment in the rock’

ΧžΧ™ΧžΧŸ[] Χ•Χž[שמ]אל

ΧžΦ΄Χ™ΦΈΦΌΧžΦ΄ΧŸ[] Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ΄[Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧ‚ΧžΦΉ]אל

β€˜on the right
and the left’

ובים. Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ”

וּבְיֹם. Χ”Φ΄Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ

β€˜and on the day of its
being bored through’

Χ”Χ›Χ•. החצבם

Χ”Φ΄Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΌ. הַחֹצְבִם

β€˜the diggers struck’

אש. לקרΧͺ. Χ¨Χ’Χ•

אִשׁ. לִקְרַΧͺ. Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Χ•ΦΉ

β€˜a man to meet
his companion’

Χ’Χ¨Χ–ΧŸ. גל [Χ’]Χ¨Χ–ΧŸ

Χ’Φ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧŸ. גַל [Χ’Φ·ΦΌ]Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧŸ

β€˜axe upon axe’

Χ•Χ™ΧœΧ›Χ• Χ”ΧžΧ™Χ

Χ•Φ·Χ™Φ΅ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ›Χ•ΦΌ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ·ΦΌΧ™Φ΄Χ

β€˜and the water flowed’

מן. Χ”ΧžΧ•Χ¦Χ. אל. Χ”Χ‘Χ¨Χ›Χ”

מִן. Χ”Φ·ΧžΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧ. א֢ל. Χ”Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ›ΦΈΧ”.

β€˜from the outlet
to the pool’

Χ‘ΧžΧΧͺΧ™[ם Χ•]אלף. ΧΧžΧ”

Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧžΦΈΧΧͺΦ·Χ™Φ΄[ם Χ•Φ°]א֢ל֢ף. ΧΦ·ΧžΦΈΦΌΧ”

β€˜at two hundred
and one thousand cubits’

Χ•Χž[א]Χͺ. ΧΧžΧ”. Χ”Χ™Χ”. Χ’Χ‘Χ”. Χ”Χ¦Χ¨

Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°[אַ]Χͺ. ΧΦ·ΧžΦΈΦΌΧ”. Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧ”. Χ’ΦΉΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ”ΦΌ. Χ”Φ·Χ¦Φ»ΦΌΧ¨

β€˜and one hundred cubits
was the height of the rock’

גל. ראש. Χ”Χ—Χ¦Χ‘[ם

גַל. רֹאשׁ. Χ”Φ·Χ—ΦΉΧ¦Φ°Χ‘Φ΄[ם

β€˜above the heads
of the diggers.’

Commentary

Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ”

There are several possible nominal patterns that may fit this word: */naqibbaː/ (β‰ˆ Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ”) in the qaαΉ­illaː pattern, */naqiːbaː/ (β‰ˆ Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ”) in the qaαΉ­iːlaː pattern, or */naqabaː/ (β‰ˆ Χ Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ”) in the *qaαΉ­alaː pattern. AhΜ£ituv appears to favor */naqibbaː/, the same pattern found in nouns like Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ˜ΦΌΦΈΧ” β€˜release’ and Χ›ΦΌΦ°ΧœΦ΄ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ” β€˜humiliation’ (AhΜ£ituv 2008, 22–23).

There can be some confusion in the rendering of the root Χ Χ§Χ΄Χ‘ throughout this inscription. While AhΜ£ituv translates it as β€˜breakthrough’, a rendering like β€˜breakthrough’ or β€˜breach’ can be a bit problematic depending on how one understands it. In the Hebrew Bible, a β€˜breakthrough’ or β€˜breach’ of a wall or something like that is typically indicated by the root Χ€Χ¨Χ΄Χ₯: e.g., ‏ויבאו (Χ›ΧͺΧ™Χ‘) וַיָּבֹא֙ (Χ§Χ¨Χ™) Χ™Φ°Χ¨Φ£Χ•ΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧœΦ·Φ”Φ΄Χ Χ•Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΉΧ₯Φ© Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧžΦ·Φ¨Χͺ Χ™Φ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧœΦ·ΦœΦ΄Χ בְּשַׁրגַר א֢׀ְרַ֙יִם֙ גַד־שַׁ֣גַר Χ”Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈΦ”Χ” אַרְבַּΦ₯Χ’ ΧžΦ΅ΧΦ–Χ•ΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦΈΦ½Χ”Χƒ β€˜and he came to Jerusalem and breached the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Gate of the Corner, four hundred cubits’ (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 β€˜piercing’ or a β€˜boring through’ rather than a β€˜breach’: e.g., ‏ Χ•Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·ΦžΧ— Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΉΧ™ΦΈΧ“ΦΈΦ€Χ’ Χ”Φ·Χ›ΦΌΦΉΧ”Φ΅ΧŸΦ™ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ£Χ•ΦΉΧŸ א֢חָ֔ד Χ•Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΉΦ₯Χ‘ Χ—ΦΉΦ–Χ¨ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ“Φ·ΧœΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ‘Χ•ΦΉ β€˜and Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bore a hole in its lid’ (2 Kgs. 12.10); ‏גַΧͺΦΌΦΈΦ‘Χ” Χ”Φ΄Χ ΦΌΦ΅Φ£Χ” Χ‘ΦΈΧ˜Φ·Φ£Χ—Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ לְּךָ֑ גַל־מִשְׁג֢נ֢ΧͺΦ© Χ”Φ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΆΦ¨Χ” Χ”ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ¦Φ€Χ•ΦΌΧ₯ Χ”Φ·Χ–ΦΌΦΆΧ”Φ™ Χ’Φ·ΧœΦΎΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·Φ”Χ™Φ΄Χ אֲשׁ֢֨ר Χ™Φ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧžΦ΅Φ₯ךְ אִישׁ֙ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΦ”Χ™Χ• Χ•ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦ₯א Χ‘Φ°Χ›Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦ–Χ•ΦΉ Χ•ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΦ‘Χ”ΦΌ β€˜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 it’ (2 Kgs. 18.21); Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ·Φ¨ΧžΦΌΦ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ›ΦΌΦ΅Φ”Χ¨ ΧžΦ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ›ΦΌΦ΅Φ–Χ¨ א֢ל־צְרΦ₯Χ•ΦΉΧ¨ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ½Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Χƒ β€˜and the one who earns wages [will be] as one who earns wages into a money bag with a hole in it’ (Hag. 1.6); ‏הֲΧͺָשִׂ֣ים ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧžΦ£Χ•ΦΉΧŸ בְּאַ׀ּ֑וֹ וּ֝בְח֗וֹחַ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ₯Χ•ΦΉΧ‘ ΧœΦΆΦ½Χ—Φ±Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧƒ β€˜can you put a rope in his nose, or with a hook pierce his jaw?’ (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.

Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“

Note that the presence of vav in this word likely indicates a preserved diphthong */ba-Κ•awd/. It should be contrasted with ובים below, which reflects a contracted diphthong: i.e., */wa-ba-joːm/.

[החצבם מנ׀ם אΧͺ]

Various emendations have been suggested for this missing passage. Presumably, the verb has to have Χ’Χ¨Χ–ΧŸ β€˜axe’ as its object. There are several verbs that could apply here. The verb Χ”Φ΅Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ£-Χ™ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ™Χ£ β€˜wield (an axe); wave (an axe)’ is found in similar contexts in the Hebrew Bible: ‏הֲיִΧͺְ׀ָּא֡ר֙ Χ”Φ·Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΦ”ΧŸ Χ’Φ·Φ–Χœ Χ”Φ·Χ—ΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Φ£Χ‘ Χ‘ΦΌΦ‘Χ•ΦΉ אִם־יִΧͺΦ°Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ“ΦΌΦ΅Φ€Χœ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ‚ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ™ Χ’Φ·ΧœΦΎΧžΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ€Φ”Χ•ΦΉ β€˜will the axe boast over the one who hews with it, or the saw over the one who wields it?’ (Isa. 10.15); β€ΧœΦΉΧΦΎΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΄Φ₯Χ™Χ£ Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΦ–Χ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΦ½ΧœΧƒ β€˜you shall wield no iron tool on them’ (Deut. 27.5). AhΜ£ituv’s suggestion of the verb Χ”Φ΅Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ£-Χ™ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ™Χ£ β€˜wield (an axe); wave (an axe)’ does seem plausible (2008, 23).

Alternatively, the verb Χ Φ΄Χ“ΦΌΦ·Χ— or Χ ΦΈΧ“Φ·Χ— β€˜to swing (an axe)’, 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: ‏וְנִדְּחָ֨ה Χ™ΦΈΧ“Φ€Χ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ·Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧŸΦ™ ΧœΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ¨ΦΉΦ£Χͺ Χ”ΦΈΧ’Φ΅Φ”Χ₯ β€˜and his hand swings an axe to cut down the tree’ (Deut. 19.5). In the other example, the direct object of the axe has no preposition: β€ΧœΦΉΦ½ΧΦΎΧͺַשְׁחִրיΧͺ א֢ΧͺΦΎΧ’Φ΅Χ¦ΦΈΧ”ΦΌΦ™ ΧœΦ΄Χ Φ°Χ“ΦΌΦΉΦ€Χ—Φ· Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ™Χ•Φ™ Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΦ”ΧŸ β€˜you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe on them’ (Deut. 20.19). Note also that the Tiberian nifΚΏal form could equally be vocalised as a qal: i.e., Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ—ΦΈΧ” (nifΚΏal) vs. Χ•Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ“Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ” (qal). This is, in fact, what we find in the Samaritan tradition: Χ•Χ Χ“Χ— [wˈnɑːdΙ‘]. Therefore, we could also restore in the empty space [החצבם נדחם אΧͺ] = [haΔ§-Δ§oːṣiˈbiːm noːdiˈħiːm Κ”it] with a similar meaning.

From a syntactic perspective, the prepositional phrase Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“ β€˜in; while (still)’ can be followed by a simple noun phrase expressing a duration of time (e.g., Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ£Χ•ΦΉΧ“ Χ€ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ֢Χͺ Χ™ΦΈΧžΦ΄Φ—Χ™Χ יִשָּׂրא Χ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΉΧ”Φ™ א֢ΧͺΦΎΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΧΦΆΦ”ΧšΦΈ β€˜in three days, Pharaoh will lift up your head’ (Gen. 40.13)), by a verbal clause made up of a noun followed by a participle modifier (e.g., Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“Φ™ Χ”Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦΆΦ£ΧœΦΆΧ“ Χ—Φ·Φ”Χ™ Χ¦Φ·Φ–ΧžΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ™ וָֽא֢בְכּ֢֑ה β€˜while the child was still alive, I fasted and wept’ (2 Sam. 12.22)), or by a verbless clause (e.g., ‏ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ£Χ•ΦΉΧ“ שַׁ֭דַּי Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ“Φ΄Φ‘Χ™ β€˜when Shaddai is with me…’ (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 אΧͺ. AhΜ£ituv compares phrases with just Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“ in the Hebrew Bible (2008, 23): e.g., Χ’Φ₯Χ•ΦΉΧ“ הָגָ֛ם ΧžΦ°Χ–Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ΄Φ₯ים β€˜the people were still sacrificing’ (1 Kgs. 22.44); Χ•Φ°Χ’Φ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ“ אֲנִրי ΧžΦ°Χ“Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Φ™ Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧœΦΌΦ΅Φ”Χœ β€˜and while I was still speaking and praying’ (Dan. 9.20). Overall, however, the syntactic construction here is much more similar to that found in 2 Sam. 12.22 cited above.

Χ”Χ’Χ¨Χ–ΧŸ

Note that this word has a final seghol in the Tiberian tradition (i.e., Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ–ΦΆΧŸ β€˜axe’), 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., */garˈzinn/

Χ¨Χ’Χ•

As AhΜ£ituv suggests (2008, 23), the Masoretic form Χ¨Φ΅Χ’Χ•ΦΉ is likely due to analogy. At an earlier stage, the vav was probably consonantal after the contraction of the diphthong: i.e., */riΚ•ayhu(ː)/ β†’ */riΚ•eːhu(ː)/ β†’ */riΚ•eː(h)u(ː)/ β†’ */riΚ•eːw/.

Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“ שלש אמΧͺ ΧœΧ”Χ [Χ§Χ‘

Syntactically, this phrase may be compared with biblical phrases like Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ₯Χ•ΦΉΧ“ Χ›ΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χͺ־א֢֖ר֢Χ₯ ΧœΦΈΧ‘ΦΉΦ£Χ א֢׀ְרָ֑ΧͺΦΈΧ” וָא֢קְבְּר֢րהָ שָּׁם֙ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ“ΦΆΦ£Χ¨ΦΆΧšΦ° א֢׀ְרָ֔Χͺ β€˜when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, I buried [her] there on the road to Ephrath’ (Gen. 48.7) and Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ“ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧœΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΦ€Χ” חֳדָשִׁים֙ ΧœΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ΄Φ”Χ™Χ¨ Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ΄ΧžΦ°Χ˜Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ™Φ™ Χ’Φ·ΧœΦΎΧ’Φ΄Φ£Χ™Χ¨ א֢חָ֔Χͺ β€˜while there were still three months to go for the harvest, I would rain on one city’ (Amos 4.7).

ΧœΧ”Χ [Χ§Χ‘

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

Χ”Χ™Χͺ

Note that the Tiberian form Χ”ΦΈΧ™Φ°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/ β€˜he wrote’, but cf. */katabat/ β€˜she wrote’. Over time, this final */-t/ elided and left behind a long vowel: i.e., */katabat/ β†’ */kataba(t)/ β†’ */katabaː/ β€˜she wrote’. In III-y roots, however, this final */-t/ was preserved, likely to maintain a distinction between 3MS and 3FS: e.g., */bakaja/ β€˜he wept’ vs. */bakajat/ β€˜she wept’ β†’ */bakaː/ β€˜he wept’ vs. X = ? β€˜she wept’. 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 */-aː/: i.e., (i) */bakajat/ β†’ (ii) */bakaːt/ β†’ β†’ (iii) */bakataː/ β†’ Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ›Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ” (in analogy to forms like */katabaː/ β†’ Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ”). There are some forms in the Bible, however, that did not add this pleonastic */-aː/, essentially stopping at stage (ii) above: e.g., Χ•Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©Χ‚ΦΈΧͺΦ™ β€˜so that it will produce’ (Lev. 25.21); ‏והיΧͺ (Χ›ΧͺΧ™Χ‘) Χ•Φ°Φ½Χ”ΦΈΧ™Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦžΧ” (Χ§Χ¨Χ™) β€˜and shall be’ (2 Kgs. 9.37). The form Χ”Χ™Χͺ in this inscription also likely represents just stage (ii) in the development: i.e., */hajaːt/.

Χ–Χ“Χ”

The word Χ–Χ“Χ” does not occur in the Bible. It has been called β€œthe crux of the ShiloahΜ£ (Siloam) inscription.” Historically, it has been interpreted as β€˜fissure’, β€˜crack’, β€˜void’, β€˜cavity’, etc. From the perspective of etymology, various roots were suggested. The root Χ–Χ™Χ΄Χ“/Χ–Χ•Χ΄Χ“, which is associated with β€˜boiling’ was regarded as possibly something that could relate to β€˜bursting’ and then β€˜something broken’. Another view takes the root as Χ–Χ“Χ΄Χ™, which has the meaning of β€˜empty’. Others took the view that the root is Χ–Χ Χ΄Χ“, which is not found elsewhere in Hebrew but is attested in Arabic and Syriac with a possible original meaning of β€˜being narrow’. Finally, some have connected Ugaritic dΜ±d, used for β€˜abode’ or β€˜dwelling place’, interpreted thus to mean β€˜cavity’ or β€˜grotto’. Alternative interpretations of the noun Χ–Χ“Χ” in the Siloam inscription also exist, however, such as β€˜duct’, β€˜excess’, β€˜obstacle’, β€˜overlap’, β€˜error’, β€˜deviation’, β€˜aiming’, β€˜echo’, β€˜attack’, β€˜widening’, β€˜dripping’, 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 β€˜error’ or β€˜deviation’ and proposes the rendering β€˜misalignment’. 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 β€˜on the right and on the left’ 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 Χ–Χ™Χ΄Χ“/Χ–Χ•Χ΄Χ“, which conventionally is interpreted as meaning β€˜boiling’. He does suggest, however, that this root can also mean β€˜to do wrong, to sin’: e.g., Χ•Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΦ¨Χ’Φ·Χ“ Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΦœΧ ΧœΦ·Χ”Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΦ£Χ א֢ל־ΧͺΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΦΆΦ—ΧšΦΈ Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ΅Φ¨ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ” Χ”Φ΅Χ–Φ΄ΦœΧ™Χ“Χ•ΦΌ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧΦΎΧ©ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ’Φ€Χ•ΦΌ ΧœΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦΆΦ™Χ™ΧšΦΈΦ™ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ˜ΦΆΦ£Χ™ΧšΦΈ Χ—ΦΈΦ½Χ˜Φ°ΧΧ•ΦΌΦΎΧ‘ΦΈΦ”Χ β€˜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 sin’ (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. 17.11–13; Ps. 119.21). Therefore, it is plausible that Χ–Χ“Χ” means β€˜misalignment’ and is from the root Χ–Χ•Χ΄Χ“ or Χ–Χ™Χ΄Χ“ (Eichler 2020).

As far as the pronunciation goes, it could be something like (i) */zaddaː/, (ii) */ziddaː/, (iii) */zaːdaː/, (iv) */ziːdaː/, or (v) */zuːdaː/. Nouns with middle gemination like patterns (i) and (ii) in the Hebrew Bible usually come from geminate or II-n roots: e.g., Χ—Φ΄Χ˜ΦΌΦΈΧ” β€˜wheat’ (from Χ—Χ Χ΄Χ˜); ΧžΦ΄ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ” β€˜word’ (from מל״ל); Χ›ΦΌΦ·ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ” β€˜bride’ (from Χ›ΧœΧ΄Χœ). 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 Χ–ΦΈΧ“ΦΈΧ”. Patterns (iv) and (v) are what one would expect for a II-w/y root. Therefore, though something like */zaːdaː/ as a substantivized participle is possible, we prefer to go with */ziːdaː/ as a more common noun pattern for II-y roots.

ובים

Note the lack of a diphthong by the absence of vav: i.e., ובים = */wa-ba-ˈjoːm/ (*/jawm/ β†’ */joːm/). It is difficult to determine why the diphthong was maintained in Χ‘Χ’Χ•Χ“ = */ba-Κ•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 /oː/ vowel, whereas the dental stop /d/ would have been more distinct and thus serve to preserve the preceding diphthong.

Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ”

The spelling Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ” be vocalised either as the definite article before the same noun as above (i.e., */han-naqiˈbaː/ β€˜the boring through’) or as an infinitive of the nifΚΏal binyan with a 3FS suffix (i.e., */hinnaqiˈbah/ β€˜its being bored through’). In the Hebrew Bible, it is much more common for the phrase בְּיוֹם β€˜on the day of; when’ 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., בְּי֛וֹם ΧΦ²Χ›ΦΈΧœΦ°ΧšΦΈΦ₯ β€˜in the day that you eat’ (Gen. 2.17); בְּי֛וֹם רְאֹΧͺְךָΦ₯ β€˜on the day you see’ (Exod. 10.28); בְּי֗וֹם Χ”Φ·Χ›ΦΌΦΉΧͺΦ΄Φ€Χ™ β€˜on the day that I struck down’ (Num. 8.17); Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ™Φ₯וֹם Χ©ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ’Φ–Χ•ΦΉ β€˜on the day that he hears’ (Num. 30.8); בְּיוֹם֙ Χ”Φ·Χ Φ°Χ—Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦ£Χ•ΦΉ β€˜on the day when he assigns’ (Deut. 21.16); בְּי֖וֹם Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ°Χ—Φ½Χ•ΦΉΧƒ β€˜on the day of its being taken away’ (1 Sam. 21.7); בְּי֖וֹם Χ”Φ΅Χ’ΦΈΦ½Χ©Χ‚Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦ‘Χ•ΦΉ β€˜on the day of its being made’ (Ezek. 43.18). There are, however, some examples of the latter: e.g., Χ‘Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧΦΎΧ”Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ·Χ’ΦΌΦ΅Χ€ΦΈΦ–Χ” β€˜on the day of the plague’ (Num. 25.18); Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ™Φ₯וֹם Χ”Φ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΈΦ½ΧœΧƒ β€˜on the day of the assembly’ (Deut. 9.10); Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ™Φ₯וֹם Χ”Φ·Χ©ΧΦΌΦΈΦ½ΧœΦΆΧ’Χƒ β€˜on a day in which snow had fallen’ (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 ובים Χ”Χ Χ§Χ‘Χ” in the inscription.

לקרΧͺ

In the Hebrew Bible, this would be written as לִקְרַאΧͺ β€˜to meet’ with a quiescent ΚΎalef, as from the root קר״א. It has been suggested that the form of the Siloam inscription reflects an infinitive like */lV-qroːt/ (β‰ˆ לִקְרֹΧͺ), as from the root Χ§Χ¨Χ΄Χ™. More recently, Hornkohl has suggested that the original form of the Tiberian infinitive לִקְרַאΧͺ β€˜to meet’ was actually something like */lV-qirΚ”at/ (β‰ˆ לְקִרְאַΧͺ), similar to other infinitives of a similar pattern: e.g., β€ΧœΦ°Χ™Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦ£Χ” אֹΧͺΦ΄Φ—Χ™ ‘to fear me’ (Deut 4:10); β€ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ’ΦΈΦ£Χ” אֹΧͺΦΈΦ”Χ”ΦΌ ‘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-qirΚ”at/ β†’ */lV-qirat/ β†’ */lV-qrat/ (see Hornkohl 2023, Β§5). As such, the Siloam inscription form לקרΧͺ may simply reflect the quiescence of the ΚΎalef and should be vocalised as */lV-qrat/β€”or more specifically */la-qrat/ given our acceptance that the preposition לְ was originally vocalised with a short /a/ vowel in Biblical Hebrew.

Χ•Χ™ΧœΧ›Χ•

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 Χ•Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ΅ΧœΦ΅Φ‘Χ›Χ•ΦΌ [vaɟ-ɟeːˈleːχuː] β€˜and went their way’ (Gen. 14.12), we have stressed this word on the penultimate: i.e., *wa-jiˈlikuː. This is based on the assumption that pausal forms in Tiberian can preserve the stress of an earlier stage of the language.

Χ”ΧžΧ•Χ¦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-moːṣaΚ”/; */ham-mawαΉ£aː/; */ham-moːṣaː/.

Χ‘ΧžΧΧͺΧ™[ם] … Χ•Χž[א]Χͺ

Note that the historical form of the word ΧžΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ” is probably to be reconstructed as */miΚ”aː/. Even in the dual and construct, then, */miΚ”aː/ was probably the base: i.e., מאΧͺים = */miΚ”aˈtajm/ β€˜two hundred’ and מאΧͺ = */miΚ”at/ β€˜hundred (cstr.)’. In the Tiberian tradition, however, the ΚΎalef has quiesced, possibly reflecting a different original pattern: e.g., מָאΧͺַ֣יִם β€˜two hundred’ (Gen. 11.23). The form מָאΧͺַיִם might thus reflect an earlier pattern */maΚ”Λˆtajm/.

Χ’Χ‘Χ”

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/.

ראש

It is highly unlikely that the ΚΎalef in this word is consonantal, since the pronunciation of this word is רֹאשׁ = [Κ€ΜŸoːoΚƒ] in the Tiberian tradition. For a long /oː/ vowel to develop here, it assumes quiescence of the ΚΎalef before the Canaanite shift (*/aː/ β†’ */oː/), which likely occurred in the second millennium BCE: i.e., */raΚ”Κƒ/ β†’ */ra(Κ”)Κƒ/ β†’ */raːʃ/ β†’ */roːʃ/.

Bibliography:

AαΈ₯ituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes From the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions From the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta. Pages 19–25.

Altman, Rochelle I. 2007. β€œSome Notes on Inscriptional Genres and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription.” Antiguo Oriente 5: 35–88.

Ben-αΈ€ayyim, Ze’ev. 1977. Χ’Χ‘Χ¨Χ™ΧͺΧ•ΧΧ¨ΧžΧ™ΧͺΧ Χ•Χ‘Χ—Χ©Χ•ΧžΧ¨Χ•ΧŸ: Χ’ΧœΧ€Χ™ΧͺΧ’Χ•Χ“Χ•ΧͺΧ©Χ‘Χ›ΧͺΧ‘ Χ•Χ’Χ“Χ•Χͺ Χ©Χ‘Χ’Χœ Χ€Χ”: Χ›Χ¨Χš Χ¨Χ‘Χ™Χ’Χ™. Jerusalem: הוצאΧͺ Χ”ΧΧ§Χ“ΧžΧ™Χ” ΧœΧœΧ©Χ•ΧŸ Χ”Χ’Χ‘Χ¨Χ™Χͺ.

Eichler, Raanan. 2020. β€œBoring philology: The meaning of zdh in the Siloam inscription.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 152: 44–52.

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

Huehnergard, John. 2015. β€œBiblical Hebrew Nominal Patterns.” 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, 25–64. Atlanta: SBL Press.

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

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

Ussishkin, David. 1969. β€œOn the Shorter Inscription from the β€˜Tomb of the Royal Steward’.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 196: 16–22.

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

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