Discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah to provide water to Jerusalem in time of siege (2 Kings 22:20; 2 Chron 32:30), was confirmed by an accompanying inscription which dates to the reign of Hezekiah. Parker says,
Discovered by some boys at play in 1880, the Siloam Inscription commemorates the dramatic meeting of two teams of tunnelers, digging from opposite directions, during the construction of the tunnel in the reign of Hezekiah. The text, written in paleo-Hebrew, offers an unusual contrast to the Biblical account (2 Kings 22:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30). Like most ancient commemorative texts, the Biblical account gives the royal perspective, whereas the Siloam Inscription features the style and content of a man who witnessed and participated.[1]
Minimalist views
Minimalist scholars[2] J. Rogerson and P. Davies claimed that the inscription does not date to the reign of Hezekiah, but to the Hasmonean era (less than two centuries before the birth of Christ), a claim used to cast doubt on the date of the tunnel itself, and to argue that it was not built by Hezekiah.
Of the proposal by Rogerson and Davies, R. S. Hendel states,
They acknowledge that specialists in palaeography unanimously date the inscription to the last quarter of the eighth century BCE, but they maintain that the palaeographers are mistaken, apparently deluded by circular reasoning and professional hubris. This is a remarkable claim and deserves some consideration.[3]
Rogerson and Davies’ chief contention is that palaeographic analysis of ancient Hebrew inscriptions is extremely imprecise.[4]
Although acknowledging that their view is contradicted by the unanimous consent of palaeographers, Rogerson and Davies claim that palaeography is insufficiently precise to differentiate between 8th century and 2nd century texts.
Scholarly Dissension
Eshel (renowned epigraphist), and J. A. Hackett (Harvard Professor of Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic epigraphy), have both rejected the claim that palaeographer is too imprecise to date the inscription reliably.
Eshel states,
These examples, as well as many others, show that palaeography stands on a strong and stable foundation. Today palaeography can date documents to within half a century. It is true that palaeography alone can only tell us that the Siloam Inscription may have been written at the end of the eighth century or in the seventh century B.C.E., but palaeography can tell us with certainty that the inscription was not written in the second century B.C.E., as Rogerson and Davies “strongly suggest.[5]
Hackett states,
The science of palaeography—the dating of scripts by the shape, form, stance, stroke order, and direction, as well as by other tell-tale diagnostic indications—can now date these scripts within a century and sometimes even closer. Contrary to Rogerson and Davies, palaeographers can distinguish between pre-Exilic Old Hebrew and post-Exilic paleo-Hebrew. Rogerson and Davies admit, in fact, that the Siloam Inscription’s waw, yod, kap and qop do not fit well into a second-century B.C.E. script chart, and this should have been enough to tip them off to the problem with their argument.[6]
A. Hurvitz (Professor of Bible and Hebrew Linguistics), observed that the claims of Rogerson and Davies had been rejected by the leading epigraphists, and disproved their linguistic arguments. He states,[7]
I am not surprised that some of the leading palaeographical authorities in our field have so severely criticized the effort of Rogerson and Davies to place the Siloam Inscription in the Hasmonean period.
In sum, it is the Biblical and inscriptional evidence adduced by Rogerson and Davies in support of their claim that undermines it. I would strongly suggest, therefore, that if they insist on their theory regarding the late dating of the Siloam tunnel, they should drop the linguistic argumentation from their discussion—which for them is unfamiliar territory.
The Hebrew of the Siloam Inscription is worlds apart from the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Hebrew of the apocryphal book known as Ben Sira (also known as Ecclesiasticus or “The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sira”). To anyone versed in Hebrew linguistics, the Siloam Inscription clearly does fall under the heading of classical Hebrew, as manifested in classical Biblical literature.
It is true that the linguistic tools at our disposal cannot tell us whether the Siloam Inscription specifically reflects the time of Hezekiah’s rule (727–698 B.C.E.). On the basis of both the Biblical and post-Biblical evidence, however, we can conclude that—linguistically—the inscription must be dated to the classical phase of ancient Hebrew, that is, to the pre-Exilic period (before 586 B.C.E.).
Leading palaeographer Ada Yardeni likewise dismissed the claim that the inscription shows evidence of a Hasmonean dating,
If the Siloam Inscription were inscribed in the Hasmonean period, its script would reveal a late stage of evolution (like the palaeo-Hebrew scrolls) or artificial archaized characteristics (like the Hasmonean coins). It displays neither.[8]
Scholarly consensus
R. Hendel (a professional epigrapher specializing in Semitic languages), has responded strongly to the following claims made by Rogerson and Davies, demonstrating that they are in error.
He rejects the clam that some of the letters in the text have no parallels in Iron Age inscriptions, casting doubt on the idea that they were written during the Iron Age; ‘The problem with this statement is that there are plenty of parallels to these four letters in Hebrew inscriptions from the late Iron Age, a number of which are datable by their archaeological context.[9]
A review of the relevant evidence, however, shows that Rogerson and Davies’ palaeographic arguments are deeply flawed. It is in fact quite easy to tell that the script of the Siloam Inscription belongs to the eighth-seventh century sequence and not to the paleo-Hebrew sequence of the Hasmonean era and later.[10]
F. M. Cross, (Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University), observed that Rogerson and Davies were unqualified to make judgments on the text.
The list of significant features differentiating Old Hebrew from paleo-Hebrew can be extended to most, if not all, letters of the alphabet. To identify them requires an eye and memory for form, gifts that make the palaeographer. Without such gifts, a scholar is in the same straits as the tone-deaf musician who wishes to conduct an orchestra.[11]
Professional epigraphist P. Kyle McCarter Jr. has made a similar statement:
No epigraphist trained in the scripts of these periods would confuse second-century B.C.E. paleo-Hebrew with sixth-century B.C.E. Hebrew, much less with eighth-century B.C.E. Hebrew.[12]
The scholarly consensus of leading epigraphers has concluded that the inscription in Hezekiah’s Tunnel does indeed date to the 8th century BCE.
Because all Hebrew epigraphers now date the Siloam Inscription to the eighth century B.C.E., Rogerson and Davies are obliged to go back nearly a century for authority.† Of course, this earlier generation of scholars could not have been aware of the numerous Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period discovered since then.[13]
[1] S. B. Parker, “Jerusalem’s Underground Water Systems Siloam Inscription Memorializes Engineering Achievement” BAR 20/04 (1994), 36-38.
[2] The ‘minimalist’ view is that archaeology provides little or no support for the Biblical history, the ‘maximalist’ view is that archaeology overwhelmingly supports the Biblical history, and the moderate view is that archaeology substantially supports the Biblical history but that not all of it can be supported directly from archaeology.
[3] R. S. Hendel, “The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies” The Biblical Archaeologist 59/4 (1996): 233-237 (233).
[4] Hendel, “The Date of the Siloam Inscription”, 233.
[5] E. Eshel, “Some Paleographic Success Stories” BAR 23/02 (1997): 48-49.
[6] J. A. Hackett, “Spelling Differences and Letter Shapes Are Telltale Signs” BAR 23/02 (1997): 42-44.
[7] A. Hurvitz, “Philology Recapitulates Paleography” BAR 23/02 (1997): 49-50.
[8] A. Yardeni, “They Would Change the Dates of Clearly Stratified Inscriptions—Impossible!” BAR 23/02 (1997): 47.
[9] Hendel, “The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies”, 233.
[10] Hendel, “The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies”, 233.
[11] F. M. Cross, “Because They Can’t See a Difference, They Assert No One Can” BAR 23/02 (1997): 44-45.
[12] P. Kyle McCarter Jr., “No Trained Epigraphist Would Confuse the Two” BAR 23/02 (1997): 45-46.
[13] A. Lemaire, “Are We Prepared to Raze the Edifice?” BAR 23/02 (1997): 47-48.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One