Biblical Archaeology Review

Faust also argues that “the current wall [separating Warren’s Shaft] is no earlier than Hezekiah’s Tunnel.”

Apparently all scholars agree that the bottom of the shaft was low enough for some water to be collected in it—after all, the common perception of the shaft’s function until Reich’s and Shukron’s discoveries was based on this premise. Furthermore, Reich and Shukron remeasured the shaft and explicitly claim that water was collected at its bottom. The debate was only whether water was actually drawn or not (for this, see my original article).

See Amihai Mazar, “Jerusalem’s Water Supply in the First Temple Period,” in Shmuel Ahituv and Benjamin Mazar, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2000), p. 197 (Hebrew). The actual flow varies greatly, from about 700 to 4,750 cubic meters per day, depending on annual precipitation; Alon De Groot, “Water Systems in Jerusalem in the First Temple Period,” in Donald Amit and Rivka Gonen, eds., Jerusalem in the Time of the First Temple (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1991), p. 124 (Hebrew).

H. Mommsen, I. Perlman, and J. Yellin, “The Provenience of the lmlk Jar,” Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984), pp. 89–133, here p. 113.

Kristin Swanson, “A Reassessment of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Jar Handles and Iconographic Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002), p. 460.

(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1960).

Eusebius of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. J.E.L. Oulton (1957), Book VIII, 1.5.

Origen, On Prayer, ed. Berlin, 31, 6.

Migne, Patrologia Latina 3.270.