Biblical Archaeology Review

For a more detailed treatment of this problem, see my Pre-Exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact (New York/London: T & T Clark International, 2011), pp. 71–80.

Stuttgarter Erklārungsbibel mit Apokryphen: die Heilige Schrift nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers mit Einführungen und Erklārungen, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), p. 271.

See M.J. Evans, “Women,” in Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL/Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), pp. 989–999 (see p. 990); see also Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 5.1.2.

I am grateful to Ronny Reich and Aren Maeir for their helpful comments. Of course, this should not be interpreted as implying agreement with what I have written.

A recent carbon-14 study dating the tunnel to about 700 B.C.E. is not precise enough to distinguish between the reigns of Hezekiah and Yehoash. See Amos Frumkin and Aryeh Shimron, “Tunnel Engineering in the Iron Age: Geoarchaeology of the Siloam Tunnel,” Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006), p. 227.

The pottery is being studied in detail by Alon De Groot and Atalya Fadida. See Alon De Groot and Atalya Fadida, “The Pottery Assemblage from the Rock-Cut Pool Near the Gihon Spring,” Tel Aviv 38 (2011), pp. 158–166.

Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, “The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered,” Tel Aviv 38 (2011), pp. 147–157.

The argument of Sneh, Shalev and Weinberger cited in endnote 4 has also been rejected on other grounds—regarding how the route of the tunnel was determined—in Aryeh E. Shimron and Amos Frumkin, “The Why, How and When of the Siloam Tunnel Reevaluated: A Reply to Sneh, Weinberger, and Shalev,” BASOR 364 (2011), p. 53.