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 โCity 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 Hezekiahโs 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. 22:9โ11; 2 Chr. 32:3โ5, 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] ืื ืงืื โthe matter of the breakthroughโ (Ahฬฃituv 2008, 19โ22). The inscription reads as follows:
Original Text
๐ค๐ค๐ค] ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค [๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค . ๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค]๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค
๐ค]๐ค ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค . ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[] ๐ค ๐ค[๐ค๐ค]๐ค๐ค. ๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค . ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค . ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค [๐ค]๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค] ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค ๐ค[
๐ค ๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค
Transcription with Audio (Ancient Script)
| Ancient Script | Historical Pronunciation | Translation |
๐ค๐ค๐ค] ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | daหbar han-naqibหbaห | โThe matter of the boring throughโ |
๐ค ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | wa-หzeห haหjaห daหbar han-naqibหbaห | โAnd this is the matter of the boring throughโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค [๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค] ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | ba-หสawd haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหbiหm miniหหpiหm หสit hag-garหzinn | โWhile the diggers were swinging the axeโ |
๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค | หสiหส หสil riหสeหw | โa man toward his companionโ |
๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค๐ค] | wa-ba-หสawd สaหloหส สamหmoหt la-hinnaหqib | โand with three cubits left to be bored throughโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค]๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค | niสหmaส หqoหl หสiหส | โthe voice of a man was heardโ |
๐ค[๐ค]๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค | qoหหriส หสil riหสeหw | โcalling out to his companionโ |
๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค | หkiห haหjaหt ziหหdaห baแนฃ-หแนฃuหr | โfor there was a misalignment in the rockโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[] ๐ค ๐ค[๐ค๐ค]๐ค๐ค | mij-jaหmiหn wa-miษฌ-ษฌiหmoหl | โon the right and the leftโ |
๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | wa-ba-หjoหm hinnaqiหbah | โand on the day of its being bored throughโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค . ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. | hikหkuห haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหbiหm | โthe diggers struckโ |
๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค . | หสiหส la-qหrat riหสeหw | โa man to meet his companionโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค [๐ค]๐ค๐ค๐ค | garหzinn หสal หgarzinn | โaxe upon axeโ |
๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | wa-jiหlikuห ham-หmajm | โand the water flowedโ |
๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค | min ham-mawหแนฃaส หสil hab-bariหkaห | โfrom the outlet to the poolโ |
๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค ๐ค ]๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค | ba-miสaหtajm wa-หสalp สamหmaห | โat two hundred and one thousand cubitsโ |
๐ค ๐ค[๐ค]๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค | wa-miหสat สamหmaห haหjaห หgubh haแนฃ-หแนฃuหr | โand one hundred cubits was the height of the rockโ |
๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค. ๐ค๐ค๐ค๐ค[๐ค | หสal หroหส haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหbiหm | โabove the heads of the diggers.โ |
Transcription with Audio (Modern Script)
| Modern Script | Modern Pointed | Translation |
ืืืจ] ืื ืงืื | ืึฐึผืึทืจ] ืึทื ึฐึผืงึดืึธึผื | โThe matter of the boring throughโ |
ืืื. ืืื. ืืืจ. ืื ืงืื | ืึฐืึถื. ืึธืึธื. ืึฐึผืึทืจ. ืึทื ึฐึผืงึดืึธึผื | โAnd this is the matter of the boring throughโ |
ืืขืื [ืืืฆืื ืื ืคื ืืช] ืืืจืื | ืึฐึผืขืึนื [ืึทืึนืฆึฐืึดื ืึฐื ึดืคึดื ืึถืช] ืึทืึทึผืจึฐืึถื | โWhile the diggers were swinging the axeโ |
ืืฉ. ืื. ืจืขื | ืึดืฉื. ืึถื. ืจึตืขืึน | โa man toward his companionโ |
ืืืขืื. ืฉืืฉ. ืืืช. ืืื [ืงื | ืึผืึฐืขืึนื. ืฉึธืืึนืฉื. ืึทืึนึผืช. ืึฐืึดื ึผึธ[ืงึตื | โand with three cubits left to be bored throughโ |
ื ืฉื]ืข. ืงื. ืืฉ | ื ึดืฉึฐืืึท]ืข. ืงึนื. ืึดืฉื. | โthe voice of a man was heardโ |
ืงืจ]ื. ืื. ืจืขื | . ืงึนืจึต]ื. ืึถื. ืจึตืขืึน | โcalling out to his companionโ |
ืื. ืืืช. ืืื. ืืฆืจ | ืึดึผื. ืึธืึธืช. ืึดืึธื. ืึทึผืฆึปึผืจ | โfor there was a misalignment in the rockโ |
ืืืื[] ืื[ืฉื]ืื | ืึดืึธึผืึดื[] ืึผืึด[ืฉึฐึผืืึน]ืื | โon the right and the leftโ |
ืืืื. ืื ืงืื | ืึผืึฐืึนื. ืึดื ึธึผืงึฐืึธืึผ | โand on the day of its being bored throughโ |
ืืื. ืืืฆืื | ืึดืึผืึผ. ืึทืึนืฆึฐืึดื | โthe diggers struckโ |
ืืฉ. ืืงืจืช. ืจืขื | ืึดืฉื. ืึดืงึฐืจึทืช. ืจึตืขืึน | โa man to meet his companionโ |
ืืจืื. ืขื [ื]ืจืื | ืึทึผืจึฐืึถื. ืขึทื [ืึทึผ]ืจึฐืึถื | โaxe upon axeโ |
ืืืืื ืืืื | ืึทืึตึผืึฐืืึผ ืึทืึทึผืึดื | โand the water flowedโ |
ืื. ืืืืฆื. ืื. ืืืจืื | ืึดื. ืึทืึผืึนืฆึธื. ืึถื. ืึทืึฐึผืจึตืึธื. | โfrom the outlet to the poolโ |
ืืืืชื[ื ื]ืืืฃ. ืืื | ืึฐึผืึธืืชึทืึด[ื ืึฐ]ืึถืึถืฃ. ืึทืึธึผื | โat two hundred and one thousand cubitsโ |
ืื[ื]ืช. ืืื. ืืื. ืืื. ืืฆืจ | ืึผืึฐ[ืึท]ืช. ืึทืึธึผื. ืึธืึธื. ืึนึผืึทืึผ. ืึทืฆึปึผืจ | โand one hundred cubits was the height of the rockโ |
ืขื. ืจืืฉ. ืืืฆื[ื | ืขึทื. ืจึนืืฉื. ืึทืึนืฆึฐืึด[ื | โabove the heads of the diggers.โ |
Commentary
ืื ืงืื
There are several possible nominal patterns that may fit this word: */naqibbaห/ (โ ื ึฐืงึดืึผึธื) in the qaแนญillaห pattern, */naqiหbaห/ (โ ื ึฐืงึดืืึธื) in the qaแนญiหlaห pattern, or */naqabaห/ (โ ื ึฐืงึธืึธื) in the *qaแนญalaห pattern. Ahฬฃituv appears to favor */naqibbaห/, the same pattern found in nouns like ืฉืึฐืึดืึผึธื โreleaseโ and ืึผึฐืึดืึผึธื โhumiliationโ (Ahฬฃituv 2008, 22โ23).
There can be some confusion in the rendering of the root ื ืงืดื throughout this inscription. While Ahฬฃituv translates it as โbreakthroughโ, a rendering like โbreakthroughโ or โbreachโ can be a bit problematic depending on how one understands it. In the Hebrew Bible, a โbreakthroughโ or โbreachโ of a wall or something like that is typically indicated by the root ืคืจืดืฅ: e.g., โืืืืื (ืืชืื) ืึทืึผึธืึนืึ (ืงืจื) ืึฐืจึฃืึผืฉืึธืึทึึดื ืึทืึผึดืคึฐืจึนืฅึฉ ืึผึฐืืึนืึทึจืช ืึฐืจืึผืฉืึธืึทึึดื ืึผึฐืฉืึทึคืขึทืจ ืึถืคึฐืจึทึืึดืึ ืขึทืึพืฉืึทึฃืขึทืจ ืึทืคึผึดื ึผึธึื ืึทืจึฐืึผึทึฅืข ืึตืึืึนืช ืึทืึผึธึฝืื โand 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 โpiercingโ or a โboring throughโ rather than a โbreachโ: e.g., โ ืึทืึผึดืงึผึทึื ืึฐืืึนืึธืึธึคืข ืึทืึผึนืึตืึ ืึฒืจึฃืึนื ืึถืึธึื ืึทืึผึดืงึผึนึฅื ืึนึืจ ืึผึฐืึทืึฐืชึผึืึน โand Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bore a hole in its lidโ (2 Kgs. 12.10); โืขึทืชึผึธึกื ืึดื ึผึตึฃื ืึธืึทึฃืึฐืชึผึธ ืึผึฐืึธึก ืขึทืึพืึดืฉืึฐืขึถื ึถืชึฉ ืึทืงึผึธื ึถึจื ืึธืจึธืฆึคืึผืฅ ืึทืึผึถืึ ืขึทืึพืึดืฆึฐืจึทึืึดื ืึฒืฉืึถึจืจ ืึดืกึผึธืึตึฅืึฐ ืึดืืฉืึ ืขึธืึธึืื ืึผืึธึฅื ืึฐืึทืคึผึืึน ืึผื ึฐืงึธืึธึืึผ โand 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); ืึฐืึทึจืึผึดืฉืึฐืชึผึทืึผึตึืจ ืึดืฉืึฐืชึผึทืึผึตึืจ ืึถืึพืฆึฐืจึฅืึนืจ ื ึธืงึฝืึผืื โand the one who earns wages [will be] as one who earns wages into a money bag with a hole in itโ (Hag. 1.6); โืึฒืชึธืฉืึดึฃืื ืึทืึฐืึฃืึนื ืึผึฐืึทืคึผึืึน ืึผึืึฐืึืึนืึท ืชึผึดืงึผึฅืึนื ืึถึฝืึฑืืึนื โcan 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.
ืืขืื
Note that the presence of vav in this word likely indicates a preserved diphthong */ba-สawd/. It should be contrasted with ืืืื below, which reflects a contracted diphthong: i.e., */wa-ba-joหm/.
[ืืืฆืื ืื ืคื ืืช]
Various emendations have been suggested for this missing passage. Presumably, the verb has to have ืืจืื โaxeโ as its object. There are several verbs that could apply here. The verb ืึตื ึดืืฃ-ืึธื ึดืืฃ โwield (an axe); wave (an axe)โ is found in similar contexts in the Hebrew Bible: โืึฒืึดืชึฐืคึผึธืึตืจึ ืึทืึผึทืจึฐืึถึื ืขึทึื ืึทืึนืฆึตึฃื ืึผึืึน ืึดืึพืึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตึคื ืึทืึผึทืฉืึผืึนืจึ ืขึทืึพืึฐื ึดืืคึืึน โwill the axe boast over the one who hews with it, or the saw over the one who wields it?โ (Isa. 10.15); โืึนืึพืชึธื ึดึฅืืฃ ืขึฒืึตืืึถึื ืึผึทืจึฐืึถึฝืื โyou shall wield no iron tool on themโ (Deut. 27.5). Ahฬฃituvโs suggestion of the verb ืึตื ึดืืฃ-ืึธื ึดืืฃ โwield (an axe); wave (an axe)โ does seem plausible (2008, 23).
Alternatively, the verb ื ึดืึผึทื or ื ึธืึทื โto 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: โืึฐื ึดืึผึฐืึธึจื ืึธืึคืึน ืึทืึผึทืจึฐืึถืึ ืึดืึฐืจึนึฃืช ืึธืขึตึืฅ โand 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: โืึนึฝืึพืชึทืฉืึฐืึดึคืืช ืึถืชึพืขึตืฆึธืึผึ ืึดื ึฐืึผึนึคืึท ืขึธืึธืืึ ืึผึทืจึฐืึถึื โyou 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 ึดืึผึฐืึธื (nifสฟal) vs. ืึฐื ึธืึฐืึธื (qal). This is, in fact, what we find in the Samaritan tradition: ืื ืื [wหnษหdษ]. Therefore, we could also restore in the empty space [ืืืฆืื ื ืืื ืืช] = [haฤง-ฤงoหแนฃiหbiหm noหdiหฤงiหm สit] with a similar meaning.
From a syntactic perspective, the prepositional phrase ืืขืื โin; while (still)โ can be followed by a simple noun phrase expressing a duration of time (e.g., ืึผึฐืขึฃืึนื ื ืฉืึฐืึนึฃืฉืึถืช ืึธืึดึืื ืึดืฉืึผึธึคื ืคึทืจึฐืขึนืึ ืึถืชึพืจึนืืฉืึถึืึธ โin 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., ืึผึฐืขืึนืึ ืึทืึผึถึฃืึถื ืึทึื ืฆึทึืึฐืชึผึดื ืึธึฝืึถืึฐืึผึถึื โwhile the child was still alive, I fasted and weptโ (2 Sam. 12.22)), or by a verbless clause (e.g., โ ืึผึฐืขึฃืึนื ืฉืึทึญืึผึทื ืขึดืึผึธืึดึื โwhen 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 ืขืึนื in the Hebrew Bible (2008, 23): e.g., ืขึฅืึนื ืึธืขึธึื ืึฐืึทืึผึฐืึดึฅืื โthe people were still sacrificingโ (1 Kgs. 22.44); ืึฐืขึจืึนื ืึฒื ึดึคื ืึฐืึทืึผึตืจึ ืึผืึดืชึฐืคึผึทืึผึตึื โand 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.
ืืืจืื
Note that this word has a final seghol in the Tiberian tradition (i.e., ืึผึทืจึฐืึถื โaxeโ), 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., */garหzinn/
ืจืขื
As Ahฬฃituv suggests (2008, 23), the Masoretic form ืจึตืขืึน is likely due to analogy. At an earlier stage, the vav was probably consonantal after the contraction of the diphthong: i.e., */riสayhu(ห)/ โ */riสeหhu(ห)/ โ */riสeห(h)u(ห)/ โ */riสeหw/.
ืืขืื ืฉืืฉ ืืืช ืืื [ืงื
Syntactically, this phrase may be compared with biblical phrases like ืึผึฐืขึฅืึนื ืึผึดืึฐืจึทืชึพืึถึืจึถืฅ ืึธืึนึฃื ืึถืคึฐืจึธึืชึธื ืึธืึถืงึฐืึผึฐืจึถึคืึธ ืฉืึผึธืึ ืึผึฐืึถึฃืจึถืึฐ ืึถืคึฐืจึธึืช โwhen there was still some distance to go to Ephrath, I buried [her] there on the road to Ephrathโ (Gen. 48.7) and ืึผึฐืขึจืึนื ืฉืึฐืึนืฉืึธึคื ืึณืึธืฉืึดืืึ ืึทืงึผึธืฆึดึืืจ ืึฐืึดืึฐืึทืจึฐืชึผึดืึ ืขึทืึพืขึดึฃืืจ ืึถืึธึืช โwhile there were still three months to go for the harvest, I would rain on one cityโ (Amos 4.7).
ืืื [ื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 ืึธืึฐืชึธื 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/ โhe wroteโ, but cf. */katabat/ โshe wroteโ. Over time, this final */-t/ elided and left behind a long vowel: i.e., */katabat/ โ */kataba(t)/ โ */katabaห/ โshe wroteโ. In III-y roots, however, this final */-t/ was preserved, likely to maintain a distinction between 3MS and 3FS: e.g., */bakaja/ โhe weptโ vs. */bakajat/ โshe weptโ โ */bakaห/ โhe weptโ vs. X = ? โshe 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) */bakaหt/ โ โ (iii) */bakataห/ โ ืึผึธืึฐืชึธื (in analogy to forms like */katabaห/ โ ืึผึธืชึฐืึธื). There are some forms in the Bible, however, that did not add this pleonastic */-aห/, essentially stopping at stage (ii) above: e.g., ืึฐืขึธืฉืึธืชึ โso that it will produceโ (Lev. 25.21); โืืืืช (ืืชืื) ืึฐึฝืึธืึฐืชึธึื (ืงืจื) โand shall beโ (2 Kgs. 9.37). The form ืืืช in this inscription also likely represents just stage (ii) in the development: i.e., */hajaหt/.
ืืื
The word ืืื does not occur in the Bible. It has been called โthe crux of the Shiloahฬฃ (Siloam) inscription.โ Historically, it has been interpreted as โfissureโ, โcrackโ, โvoidโ, โcavityโ, etc. From the perspective of etymology, various roots were suggested. The root ืืืดื/ืืืดื, which is associated with โboilingโ was regarded as possibly something that could relate to โburstingโ and then โsomething brokenโ. Another view takes the root as ืืืดื, which has the meaning of โemptyโ. 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 โbeing narrowโ. Finally, some have connected Ugaritic dฬฑd, used for โabodeโ or โdwelling placeโ, interpreted thus to mean โcavityโ or โgrottoโ. Alternative interpretations of the noun ืืื in the Siloam inscription also exist, however, such as โductโ, โexcessโ, โobstacleโ, โoverlapโ, โerrorโ, โdeviationโ, โaimingโ, โechoโ, โattackโ, โwideningโ, โdrippingโ, 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 โerrorโ or โdeviationโ and proposes the rendering โmisalignmentโ. 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 โon 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 โboilingโ. He does suggest, however, that this root can also mean โto do wrong, to sinโ: e.g., ืึทืชึผึธึจืขึทื ืึผึธืึถึื ืึทืึฒืฉืึดืืึธึฃื ืึถืึพืชึผืึนืจึธืชึถึืึธ ืึฐืึตึจืึผึธื ืึตืึดึืืืึผ ืึฐืึนืึพืฉืึธืึฐืขึคืึผ ืึฐืึดืฆึฐืึนืชึถึืืึธึ ืึผืึฐืึดืฉืึฐืคึผึธืึถึฃืืึธ ืึธึฝืึฐืืึผึพืึธึื โand 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. 17.11โ13; Ps. 119.21). Therefore, it is plausible that ืืื means โmisalignmentโ 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) */zaหdaห/, (iv) */ziหdaห/, or (v) */zuหdaห/. Nouns with middle gemination like patterns (i) and (ii) in the Hebrew Bible usually come from geminate or II-n roots: e.g., ืึดืึผึธื โwheatโ (from ืื ืดื); ืึดืึผึธื โwordโ (from ืืืดื); ืึผึทืึผึธื โbrideโ (from ืืืดื). 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 ืึธืึธื. Patterns (iv) and (v) are what one would expect for a II-w/y root. Therefore, though something like */zaหdaห/ as a substantivized participle is possible, we prefer to go with */ziหdaห/ 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-หjoหm/ (*/jawm/ โ */joหm/). It is difficult to determine why the diphthong was maintained in ืืขืื = */ba-สawd/ 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.
ืื ืงืื
The spelling ืื ืงืื be vocalised either as the definite article before the same noun as above (i.e., */han-naqiหbaห/ โthe boring throughโ) or as an infinitive of the nifสฟal binyan with a 3FS suffix (i.e., */hinnaqiหbah/ โits being bored throughโ). In the Hebrew Bible, it is much more common for the phrase ืึผึฐืืึนื โon 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., ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืึฒืึธืึฐืึธึฅ โin the day that you eatโ (Gen. 2.17); ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืจึฐืึนืชึฐืึธึฅ โon the day you seeโ (Exod. 10.28); ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืึทืึผึนืชึดึคื โon the day that I struck downโ (Num. 8.17); ืึผึฐืึฅืึนื ืฉืึธืึฐืขึืึน โon the day that he hearsโ (Num. 30.8); ืึผึฐืืึนืึ ืึทื ึฐืึดืืึฃืึน โon the day when he assignsโ (Deut. 21.16); ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืึดืึผึธืงึฐืึฝืึนื โon the day of its being taken awayโ (1 Sam. 21.7); ืึผึฐืึืึนื ืึตืขึธึฝืฉืืึนืชึืึน โon the day of its being madeโ (Ezek. 43.18). There are, however, some examples of the latter: e.g., ืึฐืืึนืึพืึทืึผึทืึผึตืคึธึื โon the day of the plagueโ (Num. 25.18); ืึผึฐืึฅืึนื ืึทืงึผึธืึธึฝืื โon the day of the assemblyโ (Deut. 9.10); ืึผึฐืึฅืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึธึฝืึถืื โon 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 ืืืื ืื ืงืื in the inscription.
ืืงืจืช
In the Hebrew Bible, this would be written as ืึดืงึฐืจึทืืช โto 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-qroหt/ (โ ืึดืงึฐืจึนืช), as from the root ืงืจืดื. More recently, Hornkohl has suggested that the original form of the Tiberian infinitive ืึดืงึฐืจึทืืช โto meetโ was actually something like */lV-qirสat/ (โ ืึฐืงึดืจึฐืึทืช), similar to other infinitives of a similar pattern: e.g., โืึฐืึดืจึฐืึธึฃื ืึนืชึดึื ‘to fear me’ (Deut 4:10); โืึฐืจึดืึฐืขึธึฃื ืึนืชึธึืึผ ‘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-qirสat/ โ */lV-qirat/ โ */lV-qrat/ (see Hornkohl 2023, ยง5). As such, the Siloam inscription form ืืงืจืช may simply reflect the quiescence of the สพalef and should be vocalised as */lV-qrat/โor more specifically */la-qrat/ given our acceptance that the preposition ืึฐ was originally vocalised with a short /a/ vowel in Biblical Hebrew.
ืืืืื
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 ืึทืึผึตืึตึืืึผ [vaษ-ษeหหleหฯuห] โand went their wayโ (Gen. 14.12), we have stressed this word on the penultimate: i.e., *wa-jiหlikuห. This is based on the assumption that pausal forms in Tiberian can preserve the stress of an earlier stage of the language.
ืืืื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-moหแนฃaส/; */ham-mawแนฃaห/; */ham-moหแนฃaห/.
ืืืืชื[ื] … ืื[ื]ืช
Note that the historical form of the word ืึตืึธื is probably to be reconstructed as */miสaห/. Even in the dual and construct, then, */miสaห/ was probably the base: i.e., ืืืชืื = */miสaหtajm/ โtwo hundredโ and ืืืช = */miสat/ โhundred (cstr.)โ. In the Tiberian tradition, however, the สพalef has quiesced, possibly reflecting a different original pattern: e.g., ืึธืืชึทึฃืึดื โtwo hundredโ (Gen. 11.23). The form ืึธืืชึทืึดื might thus reflect an earlier pattern */maสหtajm/.
ืืื
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/.
ืจืืฉ
It is highly unlikely that the สพalef in this word is consonantal, since the pronunciation of this word is ืจึนืืฉื = [สฬoหoส] 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., */raสส/ โ */ra(ส)ส/ โ */raหส/ โ */roหส/.
Bibliography:
Aแธฅituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes From the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions From the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta. Pages 19โ25.
Altman, Rochelle I. 2007. โSome Notes on Inscriptional Genres and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription.โ Antiguo Oriente 5: 35โ88.
Ben-แธคayyim, Zeโev. 1977. ืขืืจืืชืืืจืืืชื ืืกืืฉืืืจืื: ืขืืคืืชืขืืืืชืฉืืืชื ืืขืืืช ืฉืืขื ืคื: ืืจื ืจืืืขื. Jerusalem: ืืืฆืืช ืืืงืืืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืจืืช.
Eichler, Raanan. 2020. โBoring philology: The meaning of zdh in the Siloam inscription.โ Palestine Exploration Quarterly 152: 44โ52.
Hornkohl, Aaron. (forthcoming 2023?). The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers and University of Cambridge.
Huehnergard, John. 2015. โBiblical 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, 25โ64. Atlanta: SBL Press.
Kantor, Benjamin. 2020. โThe Development of the Hebrew wayyiqแนญol (โwaw 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, 55โ132. 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. โA 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, 101โ110. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Suchard, Benjamin D. 2020. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew vowels: Including a Concise Historical Morphology. Leiden: Brill.
Ussishkin, David. 1969. โOn the Shorter Inscription from the โTomb of the Royal Stewardโ.โ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 196: 16โ22.
Rendsburg, Gary A. and William M. Schniedewind. 2010. โThe Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives.โ Israel Exploration Journal 60: 188โ203.
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