Are We Prepared to Raze the Edifice?

047

The dating of the Siloam Inscription proposed by Rogerson and Davies would not only change the interpretation of one of the most famous monuments of ancient Jerusalem. It would also change the dating of other Hebrew inscriptions of the First Temple period, since the Siloam Inscription is the cornerstone of Hebrew paleography for this period.

So do Rogerson and Davies present a truly revolutionary interpretation? Does it have any basis?

The water channel known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel (commonly dated to 701 B.C.E. as part of the Israelite defenses against the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem) is itself dated by the Siloam Inscription, which was carved in the wall near the southern entrance. If the Siloam Inscription dates to the second century B.C.E., as Rogerson and Davies propose, Hezekiah’s Tunnel was not dug by Hezekiah.

Then what is the water channel that the Bible tells us Hezekiah constructed (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:3–4, 30; see also Ben Sira 48:17)? According to Rogerson and Davies, this is the water system known as Warren’s Shaft. But the central part of this system is a vertical shaft, not a channel. The Biblical text tells us that the system Hezekiah constructed had a “pool” (bereµkaµh) and a “conduit,” or “channel” (teôaµlaµh). These are usually identified as the water tunnel called Hezekiah’s Tunnel and the Siloam Pool into which it debouches. Rogerson and Davies suggest that the conduit/channel referred to in the Bible may be the short passage from the Gihon Spring to the base of the vertical shaft known as Warren’s Shaft. But what of the pool? Rogerson and Davies say that the base of the shaft could be referred to as a “pool.” It is very difficult to call the base of Warren’s Shaft a pool. And it is doubtful that the short passage from the spring to the base of the shaft would be what the Bible calls the conduit or tunnel. The Biblical texts concerning Hezekiah’s water system fit much better with the 1,750-foot-long channel known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel—and with the Siloam Pool at the end of this tunnel—048than with the Warren’s Shaft system.^a

But the clearest refutation of the arguments of Rogerson and Davies comes from the paleography of the Siloam Inscription.

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.¹ 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.

Although there is some general resemblance between the script of Siloam and the archaizing script of the Hasmonean period (half a millennium later), the two are by no means precisely the same.

Rogerson and Davies mention the archaizing script of the Qumran paleo-Exodus manuscript, copied in about 100 B.C.E., for comparison with the Siloam Inscription. A quick look at the Qumran manuscript, however, clearly shows a difference in the precise shape of many letters, as well as in the general appearance of the script: The letters in the Qumran manuscript are more compact and “square” than the letters in the Siloam Inscription, where the stems (g, w, l, m, n, r) are longer and, at the end, more rounded (k, m, n).

The use of E.J. Pilcher’s 1897 paleographic chart, upon which Rogerson and Davies rely, proves exactly the opposite of their thesis. The only close similarities to the Siloam Inscription are in Pilcher’s column 4, which Pilcher identified as “late seals.” However, today it is clear that these so-called late seals are to be dated to Iron Age II (1000–566 B.C.E.). The leading example Pilcher cites (the Haggay ben Shebanyahu seal) is now dated to c. 700 B.C.E.,² the actual date of the Siloam Inscription.

Many “late seals” found since 1897 were discovered in a clear Iron II context. Furthermore, some of these seals and seal impressions (bullae) belonged to high officials of kings of Israel and Judah, so that they can be dated to within 10 or 20 years. For example, I have recently published a seal belonging to a servant/minister of the last king of Israel, Hoshea (c. 732–722 B.C.E.).^b The script of the Hebrew legend on this seal is very close to the Siloam Inscription, as will be obvious to any student of the subject.

Relying on the paleographic chart of the Iron Age II period published by J.C.L. Gibson,³ Rogerson and Davies contend that they cannot find any Iron II parallel to the Siloam Inscription’s aleph and not a very good one for its zayin. This argument cannot be serious. Gibson’s chart presents only a limited sample; the Siloam aleph and zayin shapes are in fact well attested in Iron II inscriptions—for example, in a seal with the name of a servant/minister of Achaz,⁴ king of Judah (c. 734–719 B.C.E.), and in a broken bulla with the name of a servant/minister of King Hezekiah himself.⁵ The aleph and zayin of the Siloam Inscription are also attested on the beautiful seal of “Yaazanyahu servant of the king,”⁶ from the Iron II period. These examples could easily be multiplied.⁷

Finally, Rogerson and Davies rely on the Ketef Hinnom amulets.^c True, the handbook of ancient Hebrew epigraphy by Johannes Rentz places these inscriptions in the Hasmonean period,⁸ but the editio princeps and other Hebrew epigraphers date the inscriptions on these amulets either to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. There are good reasons to reject Rentz’s arguments. For example, he says that from the archaeological context, a dating in the Exilic or post-Exilic period is very probable,⁹ but in a clear and detailed report, the excavator, Gabriel Barkay, tells us exactly the opposite: “The pottery assemblage dates from the seventh century to the early fifth century B.C.E. … Plaque I … was uncovered … about 7 cm above the repository’s floor … Its location close to the floor indicates its relative antiquity compared with the other finds recovered here … ”¹⁰ Since the dating of the Ketef Hinnom amulets in the Hasmonean/Herodian period is very doubtful, to say the least, the paleographic comparison of these amulets with the Siloam Inscription cannot be used as an argument for the late date of the latter.

In sum, there is no serious basis for suggesting that the Siloam Inscription should be ascribed to a Hasmonean king instead of to King Hezekiah.

The dating of the Siloam Inscription proposed by Rogerson and Davies would not only change the interpretation of one of the most famous monuments of ancient Jerusalem. It would also change the dating of other Hebrew inscriptions of the First Temple period, since the Siloam Inscription is the cornerstone of Hebrew paleography for this period.