Palestinian "scholars" continue to try to erase Jewish history ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Palestinian "scholars" continue to try to erase Jewish history

We recently discussed Turkish president Erdogan's response to Netanyahu's bid to obtain the Siloam Inscription which shows Jewish presence in Jerusalem, building public works projects, in the 8th century BCE.

Now two Palestinian so-called scholars are claiming that there is nothing Jewish about the Siloam Inscription:

Palestinian historian Mohammed al-Marqatan, a specialist in ancient Near Eastern languages and civilizations, told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, "The uproar stirred up by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over the Palestinian 'Silwan Inscription' is not new. It was sparked nearly three years ago, when we prevented the delivery of the inscription from Turkey to the occupying state. The inscription is Palestinian and does not prove any connection between the Hebrews and the Jews and it or to the occupied city of Jerusalem." Syrian-Palestinian researcher and historian residing in Canada, Tayseer Khalaf, told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, "The language of the inscription is Canaanite, and it does not mention the Hebrews or King Hezekiah."

These "experts" are ignoring the main evidence: the language is Hebrew and has Hebrew-specific features, specifically Benjaminite Hebrew. It consistently uses the "ha" prefix for "the" which was not consistent in other Canaanite dialects, the "vav" prefix to change from future to past tense used expensively in the Torah,

Their denial that this is Hebrew and simply calling it "Canaanite" or even the mythical "Palestinian" id political. All scholars agree that this is a specific Hebrew dialect. The Palestinian "experts" are free to publish their own papers showing their research, but of course they won't because they'd be laughed out of their fields.

For those interested, here is Grok AI's discussion of how to know that the inscription is Hebrew.

While the Siloam Inscription's language is firmly rooted in the Canaanite family of Northwest Semitic languages (sharing script, core vocabulary, and grammar with dialects like Phoenician and Moabite), it exhibits several distinctive features that align it specifically with Biblical Hebrew—particularly a regional dialect from the border areas of ancient Judah and Israel (e.g., Benjaminite or Israelian Hebrew). These "unique" elements aren't absolute inventions of Hebrew but innovations or consistent usages that set it apart from contemporary Canaanite relatives. Below, I'll highlight key specifics from the inscription's text, drawing on epigraphic analysis. I've focused on grammar, morphology, and lexicon, with direct quotes or references to lines.Grammatical and Morphological FeaturesThese reflect Hebrew's evolved syntax and verb/noun forms, which are more standardized than in Phoenician (often simpler and without a definite article) or Moabite (which shares some but lacks Hebrew's narrative chaining).

Feature	Specific Example from Inscription	Why Unique to Hebrew?
Definite article ha- (הַ)	Used throughout, e.g., הַנְּקִבָּה (ha-nəqibbâ, "the tunnel," lines 1–4); הַגַּרְזֶן (ha-garzen, "the pickaxe," line 3); הַצּוּר (ha-tsur, "the rock," line 8); הַמַּיִם (ha-mayim, "the waters," line 14); הַבְּרֵכָה (ha-bereikhah, "the pool," line 15).	Hebrew consistently prefixes ha- to nouns for definiteness, a hallmark absent in early Phoenician (which relies on context) and inconsistent in Moabite. This creates a precise, article-driven style typical of Biblical Hebrew narratives.
Waw-consecutive (וַ prefix for narrative past tense)	וְזֶה הָיָה (wə-zeh hâyâ, "and this was," line 2); וַיֵּלְכוּ (wayyēlkû, "and [the waters] flowed," line 14).	This chaining of verbs with waw- (turning imperfective to past narrative) is a signature of Hebrew prose, more elaborate than in Phoenician (which uses simpler sequences) or Moabite (seen sporadically in the Mesha Stele but without Hebrew's fluidity). It mirrors biblical storytelling, e.g., Genesis.
Feminine singular suffix-conjugation ending -ât on verbs	הָיָת (hâyât, "it was [fem., referring to the tunnel]," line 3, reconstructed as such).	This dialectal ending (-ât instead of standard -â) is a Benjaminite/Israelian Hebrew trait, paralleled in biblical texts like Leviticus 25:21 but rare in Phoenician and only sporadically in Moabite (e.g., Mesha Stele). It marks a northern Judahite influence.

Lexical and Dialectal FeaturesCertain words or forms are regionally Hebrew-specific, tied to Judahite/Israelite culture and geography, distinguishing them from broader Canaanite terms.

Feature	Specific Example from Inscription	Why Unique to Hebrew?
Dialectal form of "his fellow" as rēʿô	רֵעֵהוּ (rēʿēhû, lines 4, 7, 12—but epigraphically vocalized as rēʿô with short ô).	Standard Biblical Hebrew uses rēʿēhû, but this contracted rēʿô is a Benjaminite dialectal marker (seen in Jeremiah 6:21), absent in Phoenician or Moabite equivalents. It reflects local Judah-Israel border speech.
Term for "water-source" as mōṣāʾ	מַּיִם מִן הַמּוֹצָא (mayim min ha-mōṣāʾ, "waters from the source," line 14).	This lexeme (mōṣāʾ, "outflow" or "spring source") is geographically limited to Benjaminite Hebrew contexts (e.g., 2 Kings 2:21 for Jericho's spring), not found in Phoenician trade vocab or Moabite royal inscriptions. It ties directly to Jerusalem's Gihon Spring engineering.
Word for "deviation/fissure" as zēda	זִדָה (zidâ, "deviation," line 8).	Likely an Israelian Hebrew innovation for "crack" or "split" in rock (related to biblical zādâ "rebel/deviate"), not attested in Phoenician or Moabite; it may echo Samaritan Aramaic influences in the region.
Term for "tunnel" as nəqibbâ	הַנְּקִבָּה (ha-nəqibbâ, "the tunnel," lines 1–4).	Derived from the root nqb ("pierce"), this feminine noun form is a Hebrew-specific usage for conduits, paralleling biblical maqōr but with a Judahite engineering connotation; Phoenician uses ḥrp for digging without this precision.

These features collectively "Hebrew-ize" the text, embedding it in the cultural and linguistic world of the Kingdom of Judah around 700 BCE—evident in its alignment with biblical accounts like 2 Kings 20:20. While Canaanite parallels exist (e.g., shared roots like ḥṣb "cut" in line 11's ḥōṣəbīm), the inscription's dialectal nuances (especially the three to four Benjaminite traits) make it unmistakably Hebrew, not a generic Canaanite relic. For deeper dives, epigraphists like Gary Rendsburg emphasize how these reflect a transitional dialect between Judah and northern Israel.