Reading the Siloam inscription as narrative

Introduction

In reading the Siloam Inscription, one cannot help but be caught up in the excitement of the moment; it evokes a sense of immediacy and presence. Thus, Victor Sasson articulates the view that ‘The text of the inscription must have been inscribed shortly after the completion of the tunnel. Aside from the palaeographic evidence, the graphic and fresh description of the breaching of the tunnel strongly supports this conclusion’. ² Equally, the vivid nature of the account of the break-through is not only seen as a clue to its date but also to its author, be he a foreman, engineer, official recorder, a low-ranking official, workman, and so on. ³ But there is a problem in this line of argument, namely, that in identifying the author with the story and its actors the role of the narrator and focalizer, who stands between both is overlooked. It is the aim of this article to show that the role of the narrator/focalizer is significant to the telling of this story. Indeed, a good author can create the sense of immediacy and vividness, especially by a judicious use of focalizing (as the one who ‘sees’), and so such factors should not be considered indicators of temporal proximity.

The present study will utilize the insights of narratology to analyse the Siloam Inscription. It might seem odd to use a methodology developed to understand how 19th- and 20th-century novels work in order to analyse a commemorative inscription dated early in the orality–literacy continuum. Of course, studies using aspects of the methodology have been dedicated to narrative in the Hebrew Bible where the literary character of the text is undisputed. Here in particular we think of the pioneering works of Robert Alter and Shimon Bar Efrat; however, as far as we know, such a study has not been made of a sub-literary text of the Iron II period. But a minimalist definition of narrative (see below) and the narratological qualities of the inscription itself call for the approach to be undertaken.

Background

The making of the Siloam tunnel is a matter of ongoing interest. The debate, however, has focused mainly on the technique that was used to establish its route (e.g. the route followed a karst system in the limestone, ⁴ the route only in part followed a karst system/dissolution channel and calculations transferred between surface and the tunnel determined the direction of excavation for the central section, ⁵ or the route was established by a method of soundings from the surface ⁶ ) and its age (e.g. late 8th century vs both earlier or later, even Hasmonean, dates). The route that was followed is meandering and increases the tunnel’s length by two thirds, that is, 533 m rather than 320 m in a straight line. If the entire length of the tunnel had to be excavated, the increased length would have added considerably to construction time. The difficulty is somewhat alleviated under Rosenberg et al.’s hypothesis which eliminates the northern (Gihon Spring end) and southern (Siloam Pool end) detours from consideration, though it is to be noted that it is not factored into their calculation of the actual time taken to excavate the tunnel. But their solution is hypothetical and introduces its own problems. ⁷ A method based on surface sounding also seems a poor technique to establish with any degree of accuracy the direction of a tunnel, let alone two tunnels that should meet. Indeed, if one pauses for a moment to consider Eupalinos’ tunnel on Samos, the sounding technique appears less than optimal.

Eupalinos’ tunnel was built between 550 and 530 BCE to supply the westward expansion of the port city of Samos. The tunnel which was intended to conform as much as possible to a straight line is 1036 m in length ⁸ and 1.8 m in both height and width. It was built on an almost horizontal plane ⁹ (55 m above sea level) from both ends, and before the estimated meeting point, both teams turned, the southern tunnel to the right (east at 34° angle) and the northern tunnel to the left (east). This procedure assured them that the two paths would cross. A channel was then cut running for the most part along the eastern side of the tunnel at a depth of 3.89 m at the northern end ¹⁰ and 8.26 m at the southern end with an incline of 0.36%. Although the tunnel shows numerous reference marks along it, it is unclear what procedure was used to determine the level and line of the tunnels to such accuracy, but it is generally agreed that the line was established by the alignment of posts over the mountain. Surface sounding was not possible as the over-burden of rock was too great. ¹¹

It is not the purpose of this article to argue for or against one of the many proposed construction techniques. Following the article by Rogerson and Davies, ¹² there has been a renewed interest in the date of the Siloam inscription. They based their argument for a later, Hasmonean dating on the line of the city wall in relation to both the Siloam pool and entrance to Warren’s Shaft, the failure of the biblical texts to reference the tunnel, and the alleged imprecise nature of palaeographic dating. The response has been overwhelmingly critical, especially as regards its use of palaeography and orthography. ¹³ The present argument should not be seen as seeking to support the redating by Rogerson and Davies, but it does raise questions about the chronological relationship between the digging of the tunnel and the inscribing of the account of its final phase, that is, the break-through. The issue has recently been raised by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron ¹⁴ with their work on the northern part of the tunnel which they date earlier than Hezekiah on the basis of pottery found in the fill of the Round Chamber, and earlier by Levi Della Vida ¹⁵ ex hypothesi that the account was extracted from the annals of the kings of Judah.

Paratext and placement of the inscription

The text was inscribed on the left-hand side and 6 m in from the southern end of the tunnel. Its location was not readily accessible to the public and this has been read as consistent with the facts that it is neither dated nor names any individual (or deity) nor the circumstances which gave rise to the event and that its script shows cursive rather than monumental features. ¹⁶ In other words, all features are seen to indicate that the inscription was a private (i.e. non-official/regal) text set up either as a commemoration of the achievement or as a votive offering. ¹⁷ Reich and Shukron argue that the same inscription was intended for the northern end of the tunnel with a surface (38 × 48 cm²) prepared ‘adjacent to the opening leading into Tunnel IV’, but was for some unknown reason not inscribed. ¹⁸ This must be seen as mere conjecture with the different surface areas (50 × 66 cm² for the prepared surface for the inscription, that is, a surface area just over 80% larger) being but one problem; however, one hastens to add that the Siloam inscription only occupies the lower half of the prepared surface and what, if anything, was intended for the upper half (e.g. a relief of the described event or some other text as well) must remain uncertain. A related issue is raised by Faust when he asks, ‘Why was the inscription, which describes the meeting between the two teams, found near the end of the tunnel, far from the meeting place …?’. ¹⁹ It is an important question that must be allowed to stand, although his solution—to relocate that meeting place to the inscription’s location—or that of Altman—to interpret the location as the point of the engineer’s insight ²⁰ —seem mere conjectures.

As to other paratextual features, Sasson notes a larger space between words at three strategic places in the narrative and for him each mark the introduction of ‘a new piece of significant information’. ²¹ These occur in line 1 after ‘[Concerning] the break-through’; line 3 after ‘from south/right [to north/lef]t’; and line 4 after ‘pick upon [p]ick’. Although the last two are more difficult to be certain about given the poor preservation of the stone’s surface at these points, the first is quite clear. In his view, the space marks the first two words, which he restored as ‘[The day of] the tunnel’, as the title of the text. The use of the term ‘title’, however, is problematic to describe an ancient practice that does not align with modern convention; it should, therefore, be avoided. The designation ‘title’ designates a paratextual feature that is marked in some way or other as distinct from the text proper; in this instance, a space. If one compares the Deir ‘Alla plaster text, one finds the use of red ink to highlight parts of the text but the rubrics do not align completely with the heading, either thematically or syntactically. This has led to ‘multiple, and dramatically different, interpretations’. ²² In the Habakkuk pesher, a space is found not before the lemma but between the lemma and its interpretation. The result is that the interpretation of the previous lemma forms the first part of the ‘block of text’ that ends with the following lemma. Although this space does not function to mark off a title, it does caution one to be careful in using modern convention to understand ancient scribal punctuation. Both examples must give pause to the application of modern paratextual designations to ancient texts.

The inscription as narrative

Since E.M. Forster ²³ defined a story as ‘a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence’, that is, (a) The king died and then the queen died, and a plot as ‘a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality’, that is, (b) The king died and then the queen died of grief, there has been debate as how best to define narrative. For example, in the instance of (b), we find a sequence consisting of two events that are connected not only by conjunction and temporal sequencing, that is, and then, but also by the addition of a reason or motivation for the subsequent death of the queen, that is, of grief. For some, the addition, of grief, is an important element in any narrative. As Monika Fluderik observes, ²⁴

it (sc. the plot) can be gathered from the queen’s emotional response to what happens. Our sympathy for the queen in her grief makes the story worth reading; we can understand the how and why of what happened.

Others see the addition not only of the reason or motivation but also of the second event, the queen died, as unnecessary to the definition of narrative. For them, all that is needed is a change of state, that is, two comparable states (alive and dead) temporally connected and involving the same character. On this basis, the sentence The king died suffices as a narrative, albeit, not a very interesting one. Against the objection that for the text to be a narrative it must contain a causal or motivational connection between the two states, it is countered that causation can be inferred by the reader who interprets the temporal connections between events causally. As such causality or motivation need not be present or explicit in the text. ²⁵

Clearly, the Siloam inscription is a narrative: it tells of events that are temporally sequenced; it builds suspense in the ‘while yet’ clauses; it has characters, though unnamed; it manipulates time, for example, by compressing the duration of the digging of the final three cubits; there is a change of state (the water flowed) and the cause is made explicit; and it has the two levels of narrative, namely, the level of the narrated world (what the narrative represents, that is, the story) and the level of the narrator who does the representing. Importantly, it is a text in which the narrator makes his presence explicit by referencing the act of narration (and this was the account of the break-through) and placing himself temporally distant from the events. This is a point to which we will need to return.

[…] the break-through

There has been discussion of the meaning of נקבה‎ given that it seems to refer to a process (boring/piercing) and to a discrete event (break-through). It might be argued that the difficulty arises due to a failure to perceive an instance of semantic extension through the use of metonymy. In other words, √נקב‎ has as its primary meaning ‘to pierce/bore’ an object be it animate or inanimate, ²⁶ but the mental image of piercing provided cognitive access to the contiguous act of punching through the last centimetres of rock (i.e. the break-through). By metonymic chaining, the piercing/boring might stand for its outcome, the hole or perforation, that is, an action for result metonym, which in turn by the operation of analogy/metaphor (i.e. a tunnel is a hole) might be compared to a tunnel. Importantly, in the case of metonymy, which is in this regard unlike metaphor, both the source domain (breaking-through) and target domain (piercing) remain intact, a fact that explains the perceived tension between process and event. ²⁷ Moreover, the proximate usage of the same term with an apparent meaning of ‘break-through’ (and this is the account of the break-through) cannot be considered decisive as such switching between metonymic meanings is common. That said, the meaning of the term will depend on the missing, previous word upon which it depends; indeed, a word that allows the sense ‘break-through’ for נקבה‎ should be preferred and this gloss, notwithstanding the points just made above, has been used throughout our translation.

The beginning of the inscription has been lost but has been variously restored on the basis of an assumed loss of about two to three letters. For example, John Gibson reads תמת הנקבה‎—the tunnel has been completed. ²⁸ The narratological implication of the choice is interesting. If restored with תמת‎, the inscription begins with a historic tense which notes the completion of the tunnelling and then a few words later moves back to a time just before the meeting of the two teams. This rearrangement of events was given the name syuzhet by the Russian formalists to distinguish it from the chronological order in which the events took place in the story and which the hearer/reader had to reconstruct. We have here, then, an instance of flashback. In other words, the order in which events are narrated at the level of the narrator are not the same as the order in which they occurred in the narrated world. The problem posed by this restoration then goes to the nature of ancient narrative and the degree to which the so-called ‘oral mind’ was given to such devices. As Shimon Bar Efrat observes, ‘Flashbacks introduced by the narrator are comparatively rare in biblical narrative; as to anticipations, the rule is that the narrator avoids altogether informing the reader beforehand what is about to happen’. ²⁹ The tacit assumption that such a device could be used in the Siloam inscription stands in need of justification. There are other points of interest as well. Before moving to the flashback, the author chose to make the narrator explicit (this was the account of the break-through), what Tamar Zewi ³⁰ would call a parenthetical phrase or clause, by referencing the manner or account of the event. The choice to make the narrator explicit might be seen to facilitate the move between scenes, but the use of the historic tense here seems unusual. A narrator will tend to use a present tense in such a circumstance. Indeed, when one compares other uses of a similar expression (אשר‎) הדבר זה‎ (see below), it is clear that the use of a historic tense in the Siloam inscription results in a linguistically marked occurrence of the expression. Tense places the narrator relative to the event—in this instance by the use of דבר‎ relative to the narration of that event—and it does not matter in this instance whether the verb is defined in terms of tense (historic) or aspect (completed action), for זה‎ is cataphoric and refers to what is yet to be recounted. It would appear that the narrator in this instance is citing a source which predates the time of the inscription’s composition. What that source might be can only be guessed, but as the construction of the tunnel (תעלה‎) is assumed to be referenced in the source citation of the regnal formulae of the Deuteronomic histories (2 Kings 20.20—ספר דברי הימים למלכי יהודה‎), one might hazard the suggestion, as indeed Della Vida ³¹ does, that such a record or royal day-book was used. However, as will be discussed below, there may be a problem with the suggestion beyond those arising from (a) the critical stance adopted against the kings in much of the material ascribed to the source, (b) the absence of evidence for its existence, and (c) the chronicler’s apparent unawareness of it. ³²

Other restorations for the now lost beginning of the inscription have been suggested for which there is only time to comment on a few:

and this was the account of the break-through

The meaning of the noun דבר‎ is central to the interpretation of the inscription and its ambiguity has proved problematic. Does it signify a verbal object such as ‘word’ or does it indicate the ‘way in which’ the break-through occurred? ³⁵ The latter sense is somewhat facilitated by the presence of the perfect היה‎ (translated ‘was’) as the event (break-through) is completed, though the account of the event is thought necessarily to be present. Parker and Smelik, however, rightfully translate it in a way that signifies a verbal object, that is, ‘And this was the account/story of the breakthrough’. ³⁶

Parker notes,

The expressed verb ‘was’ in the inscription puts the account itself in the past … which suggests that the writer is recording a report that he had heard. Certainly what follows can only be based on an eyewitness report by one of the handful of people present at the last stages of the project and on information provided by the supervising engineer. No one else would know the height of the rock.

It would appear that Parker seeks to uncouple the narrator (i.e. the engineer, although he is not named as such) from the event he narrates (the break-through by the workers) but chronologically associate them through a conjectured division of labour in the building of the tunnel. We have already criticized the use of an account’s vividness to indicate firsthand testimony. It should also be noted that once the chronological link between the event and its narration is loosened, the time difference may be difficult to determine. From the point of view of N.1, the break-through is simply related as a past event. In other words, N.1 and N.2 are not conceived as contemporaries and the force of Parker’s argument must rest on the plausibility of his closing observation ‘no one else would know the height of the rock’ and the later comment on the author’s supposed motivation. ³⁷ But other explanations for the observed phenomena are possible and one must hesitate in the face of such uncertainty. Moreover, while Parker’s argument for the text’s authorship rests on his closing observation, it must be recognized that several weaknesses in this argument still persist. First, with the term ‘supervising engineer’, we are again in danger of using a modern concept (or idealized conceptual model) to understand an ancient construction. Indeed, if one considers the difference in accuracy of the Siloam and Eupalinos tunnels, then the former appears to be a somewhat middling effort for an ‘engineer’. Second, if Parker’s engineer was anxious to record his work, why would it need to be both inconspicuous and anonymous? Why go to the effort to record his achievement, only to leave it unsigned, or undedicated in a place that was out-of-sight? The lack of a name and or dedication lends further weight to the argument that the inscription was added at a date later than the completion of the tunnel, and that at that time, it was only the memory of the achievement that remained, but the actual names of those involved had been forgotten or were deemed to no longer be important.

The expression זה הדבר‎

A number of uses of the expression זה הדבר‎ are worth noting. The first is of the form (עשה‎) + זה הדבר אשר‎ which is followed by an imperative or an expression with the illocutionary force of an imperative. For example, Judg. 21.11 reads, ‘This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction’. Other instances of this form are found at Exod. 29.1, Judg. 20.9, 2 Kings 11.5 // 2 Chron. 23.4. It is clear that דבר‎ and its demonstrative point forward to the imperative or enjoinder that follows. In other words, its usage is cataphoric. Similar to this is a second clause with עשה‎ used as an imperative or with the illocutionary force of an imperative and governing the direct object הדבר הזה‎. This form is again followed by an imperative or an expression with the illocutionary force of an imperative. For example, 1 Kings 20.24 reads, ‘Also do this (עשה הזה הדבר ואת‎): remove the kings, each from his post, and put commanders in place of them’. Compare also Gen. 30.31-32, Judg. 11.37. Again, דבר‎ and its demonstrative point forward to the imperative that follows. In both instances, the referent of דבר‎ is the articulated command.

The form זה הדבר‎, now without עשה‎, is found at 1 Kings 9.15; 11.27; Deut. 15.2; and 19.4, and these instances offer the closest parallel to the expression in our inscription. The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translates 1 Kings 11.27 by, ‘The following was the reason (אשר דברה וזה‎) he rebelled against the king. Solomon built the Millo, and closed up the gap in the wall of the city of his father David …’. The translation has correctly understood the forward reference of the expression and translated דבר‎ with its metonymically extended meaning ‘reason’. In other words, the statement or דבר‎ that follows (i.e. Solomon built the Millo …) indicates the reason for Jereboam’s revolt. Compare also 1 Kings 9.15 where the reference is to the following account of Solomon’s use of forced labour (vv.16-22). ³⁸ The form of Deut. 15.2 is slightly different, that is, ‘this is the דבר‎’ is not followed by אשר‎ but דבר‎ is the nomen regens in a construct chain. Deut. 15.2 reads,

And this is the דבר‎ of the remission: every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because the Lord’s remission has been proclaimed.

The expression again points forward to the words that follow and that articulate the law of remission. Compare also Deut. 19.4 where the reference is to the following articulation of the law (vv.5-7). In other words, in these parallels, ‘this is the דבר‎’ points to a following statement giving the reason for the revolt, the account of forced labour, or the relevant law.

The implication of the above conclusion for the interpretation of the Siloam inscription should not be underestimated. We read, This was the account of the break-through. What then follows is a description of the breaking-through at the last stage of the tunnel’s construction. The narrator is apparently citing an earlier narrator. Moreover, in the four cited parallels, the expression occurs in a verbless sentence which is generally construed as indicating a time contemporary with the narrator, but this is not so in the Siloam inscription. The time difference is thus marked. Indeed, it is as if the narrator is citing a source that no longer exists and thus has passed into memory. We referred earlier to the problem with ascribing the inscription’s source to a royal day-book and the use of היה‎ here further complicates the suggestion; for it would appear that the source itself is no longer extant. However, the problem is alleviated if one moves from the idea of a written source to an oral one. Whoever had the narrative inscribed may perhaps be reporting from memory an account that had been given in the past.

Whilst yet [the hewers are wielding]the pick, each towards his comrade, and whilst yet (there are) three cubits to be tunne[lled]

It is at this point in the inscription that N.1 yields the floor to N.2. At the same time, there is a change in focalizers as the new narrator takes up the position of an observer (note the use of third person narrative) of a past event. ³⁹ The vivid impression that this narrator offers his reader has been seen as an indication that the voice is one of an eye-witness/participant; however, the use of such impressionistic arguments is problematic as any good teller of tales is able to do the same. We will thus proceed to an analysis of the text with no such assumption.

בעוד‎ functions either as an adjective of time, for example, ‘within three days’, or as a conjunction governing a verbless sentence, for example, ‘while still alive’. The second usage is in view here with a participle (‘wielding’) supplied in the first instance and the verb to be understood in the second. As such, the phrase indicates the time or events within which the action of the main clause occurs. The effect of the double occurrence in the inscription is to build suspense as one anticipates what the action or event of the main verb will be. It therefore functions to highlight the hearing of the voices. The event itself is prepared for in the wording each towards his comrade as the audience visualizes two men working towards each other and anticipates the meeting. What is not clear is why the sound of the pick strokes and their vibration on the rock are not noted. These, no doubt, would have been heard earlier by the workers but they are omitted or backgrounded to highlight the human element; it is, no doubt, this personal focus that accounts for the omission and gives personal vividness to the narrative. ⁴⁰

the voice of a man [was hear]d ca[l]ling to his comrade;

It is not clear who the indicated comrade is. Is he one of the relieving crew behind the man working at the tunnel face or is he the man on the other side of the rock-face who has already been named in the previous line as ‘his comrade’? Be that as it may, given that no one is named in the narrative, it is interesting to note the nature of characterization in the inscription. Compared with modern narratives, there is little interest in the individual and his motivations or psychology. Indeed, we do not enter into the world (or mind) of the hewers other than through their external actions; it is, however, from these actions that the modern reader infers something about the emotion of the actors. That reader gains a sense of the excitement felt by the hewers who are ‘personalized’, if one can use that term, through the cooperative/corporate nature of the task (a man and his comrade) and the human voice. ⁴¹ The narrator backgrounds the sound of the picks in order to foreground the call of one man to his comrade as the first contact between the two teams. ⁴² Whether the ancient reader would be expected to seek a psychological reading here is a point that we need to return to when we consider the conclusion of the narrative with its interest in the statistics of the tunnel.

for there was a ‘zdh’ in the rock from south/right [to north/lef]t

The action, which has been dramatically portrayed so far, is now momentarily paused as N.2 offers an explanation for why the voice was heard. In terms of narrated versus narrative time, the latter stops; nothing happens and no time elapses in the story world but the narration continues. Descriptions of scenes or settings invariably indicate a stop in narrative time. A narrative may skip quickly over events but then linger over other events or other elements in the narrated world. The device is frequently used to highlight that aspect of the narrated world and functions much as ‘slow motion’ does in movies. The interpretation of the explanation is not immediately apparent, but we will need to consider it again, when at the end of the inscription, time in the narrated world stops again.

and on the day of the break-through the hewers struck each towards his comrade, pick upon [p]ick

Whereas בעוד‎ had functioned to create anticipation, the present clause begins by declaring that it concerns the events of the day of the break-through. Yet again for the modern reader, it seems to hint at the ardent and enthusiastic efforts as each man worked no longer towards (אל‎) but now to meet (לקרת‎) his comrade. The latter term thus underlines the anticipated break-through and meeting of the two teams. This sense is also picked up and reiterated in the expression ‘pick upon pick’; for it also highlights the effort and builds suspense for the fast approaching climax of the account. It will be further noted that there is a compression of time in the narrated world, for N.2 collapses the efforts of digging the final three cubits to this brief account on the day of the break-through.

and the water flowed from the reservoir to the pool

Although the human element has appeared to be the focus thus far, it is not the break-through itself or a description of the meeting of the two teams that marks the climax. In other words, we do not have an account of the hewers meeting; that event is passed over and thus backgrounded in the statement that the water flowed. The focus shifts from the men and their efforts to the aim of the undertaking itself. However, the narrative compresses time by leaving out the interval between the break-through and the flow of water. The water would not have flowed the moment the breech was made. This would no doubt have required the levelling of the floor in the southern half, as well as channelling at the source of the water and removal of debris and any diverting structure. ⁴³ In other words, the narrative is simplified to highlight not the meeting of the teams but the result of their efforts; the flowing of the water is the climax and point of the narrative.

for one thousand t[w]o hundred cubits and a hundred cubits was the height of the rock over the head on the hewer[s]

Again a descriptive element is inserted and in this instance is used to end the narrative. We noted above the use of this device to highlight and emphasize a scene. The placing of it here at the end of the narrative has the same effect. The actions of the diggers have been narrated but the nature and extent of the feat itself is now measured in terms of the tunnel’s length and depth. The events of the day of the break-through are now broadened to encompass the structure of the tunnel in its entirety. The result and not the actors appear to be the focus, despite the fact that the measurements are offered with reference to the hewers (was the height of the rock over the head on the hewer[s]).

The question might be posed as to whether we have moved at this point back to N.1. Indeed, Smelik notes that unlike the recounting of the break-through in the previous lines, the last statement ‘reflects a keen interest in the exact measurements of the tunnel project, although it is not a nice ending from a literary point of view’. ⁴⁴ But in all probability, the judgement is based on modern sensibilities and for N.2, there was no such awkwardness. We have already noted the other point where N.2 stops narrated time to comment on what is possibly a technical feature, namely, the זדה‎ in the rock, as well as the fact that the flow of water marks the climax. The concluding statement with its statistical details is consonant with this focus. It would appear then that N.2 shows an interest in the project and its various features (cf. water reservoir also) and as such is not to be identified as one of the hewers.

Conclusion

By taking a narratological approach to the text of the Siloam inscription, we arrive at a number of conclusions. First, it is evident that there are two levels of narration as well as a possible paratextual feature in the opening two words. In particular, such a conclusion highlights the possibility of chronological distance between the two narrative levels. However, to see this as confirmation of the inscription’s Hasmonean date is unwarranted. Second and related to the above, the so-called vividness of N.2 cannot be taken as a clue to the time and person of N.1. Indeed, the vividness of the narrative and the psychological interest of the text, if they exist, belong to N.2. Third, such a reading of the narrative may be the response of the modern reader. To speak of the text as ‘a unique example of “proletarian consciousness” in antiquity’ ⁴⁵ only underlines this impressionistic reading. Fourth and perhaps more importantly, the recognition that a psychological reading may not do justice to an ancient audience and its understanding of the narrative allows one to reappraise the various features that foreground what may be the real focus of N.2, namely, the tunnel and its measurements. Thereby, the perceived awkwardness of its ending is alleviated. Of course, this begs the question posed by the opening scene with its actors and what function it might serve in relation to this overarching focus.