Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Book of Kings
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
Edited by the Board of the Quarterly
h.m. barstad r.p. gordon a. hurvitz g.n. knoppers
a. van der kooij a. lemaire c.a. newsom h. spieckermann
j. trebolle barrera h.g.m. williamson
VOLUME 125
The Invasion of Sennacherib
in the Book of Kings
A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of
2 Kings 1819
By
Paul S. Evans
LEIDEN BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Evans, Paul S.
The invasion of Sennacherib in the book of Kings : a source-critical and rhetorical
study of 2 Kings 1819 / by Paul S. Evans.
p. cm. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum ; v. 125)
Revision of the authors thesis (Ph. D.)University of Toronto, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-17596-9 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Bible. O.T. Kings, 2nd, XVIIIXIXCriticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T.
Kings, 2nd, XVIIIXIXHistory of biblical events. 3. Sennacherib, King of Assyria,
d. 681 B.C. 4. JerusalemHistorySiege, 701 B.C. 5. Assyria in the Bible. I. Title.
II. Series.
BS1335.52.E83 2009
222.5406dc22
2009008774
ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 978 90 04 17596 9
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .............................................................................. ix
Abbreviations ....................................................................................... xi
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
I. Past Research ............................................................................ 1
A. Historical Reconstructions ............................................... 15
B. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative as Part
of the DH ............................................................................ 19
II. Methodology ............................................................................. 27
A. Literary Criticism / Source Criticism ............................. 27
B. New Literary Criticism / Rhetorical Criticism ............. 29
C. Source and Rhetorical Criticism ..................................... 31
III. Overview ................................................................................... 37
Appendix
Table 16 .......................................................................................... 186
Paul S. Evans
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.
New York, 1992.
ACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie
ACJS Annual of the College of Jewish Studies
AfOB Archiv fr Orientforschung: Beiheft
AHw Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. W. von Soden. 3 vols. Wies-
baden, 19651981
ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und Meso-
potamiens
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, 1969.
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AS Assyriological Studies
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F., Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999.
BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1907.
Bib Biblica
BibIntS Biblical Interpretation Series
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth
and H. W. Wolff
BLS Bible and Literature Series
BO Berit Olam Commentary
BS The Biblical Seminar
BWAT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament
xii abbreviations
I. Past Research
Before the nineteenth century, the OT/HB had been the main source
of information on the events of the 8th century b.c.e. and Senna-
cheribs campaign into the Levant. There were also relevant sections in
Josephus, but his work was directly derived from the OT/HB, making
them of little value.3 However, the account of Sennacheribs defeat at
Pelusium in Herodotus was thought to corroborate and supplement the
information from the OT/HB.4 Herodotus described an infestation of
field mice that swarmed the Assyrian camp when Sennacherib was at
1
See Otto Eissfeldt, Ezechiel als Zeuge fr Sanheribs Eingriff in Palstina, in
Kleine Schriften (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962), 23954; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah
and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old
Testament (JSOTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 2851; and Brevard S. Childs,
Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2/3; London: SCM, 1967), 2063.
2
In his seminal study of Sennacheribs third campaign, Leo L. Honor (Sennacheribs
Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study [COHP 12; New York: Columbia, 1926])
points out that annals are not really an adequate term for these inscriptions. He
writes, We usually conceive of annals as an historic record in which the important
events of each year are noted. . . . Sennacheribs Annals are neither contemporary nor
are they a record of important events arranged year by year (1).
3
See Josephus Ant. 10.123; and War 5.38688, 40408. The account in Kings led to
the construction of the account in both Josephus and in 2 Chr 32:123 and we cannot
derive new historical information from these sources.
4
Herodotus Hist. 2.141.
2 introduction
war with Egyptian forces. These mice are said to have consumed the
quivers, bows and shield handles of the Assyrian army, forcing them
to flee unarmed and suffer many casualties. This strange account was
seen as parallel to the defeat of Sennacherib by the angel of Yahweh
in 2 Kgs 19:35, with some suggesting that both the angel and the mice
referred to a plague in the Assyrian camp.5 However, Herodotus located
the infestation of mice near Pelusium whereas the biblical account
appeared to locate the angelic attack outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, many viewed the Herodotus text as relevant and somehow
related to the defeat of Sennacherib recorded in the OT/HB.6
This deficiency in relevant historical sources for Sennacheribs inva-
sion was happily alleviated when H. Rawlinson published the most
famous of the Assyrian annals, the Taylor Prism, in 1851.7 Various
cuneiform inscriptions that referred to the events of 701 b.c.e. were
discovered and finally made available in an edition and English transla-
tion by D. D. Luckenbill in 1924.8 Further translations (though without
accompanying editions of the text) made these texts more widely acces-
sible to those without Akkadian.9 These texts revolutionized scholarly
understanding of Sennacheribs invasion.10
5
E.g., Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1994), 48184. Cf. Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 5860.
6
So James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 49798; John Bright, A History of Israel
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 288; and John Gray, 1 & 2 Kings (OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1970), 694.
7
Henry Rawlinson, Assyrian Antiquities, Athenaeum 1243 (23 August 1851),
902-03. Later published in Henry Rawlinson, Outlines of Assyrian History, Collected
from the Cuneiform Inscriptions, XXIVth Annual Report of the Royal Asiatic Society
(1852): XVXLVI. For a detailed account of the history of the work on Sennacheribs
inscriptions see Louis D. Levine, Preliminary Remarks on the Historical Inscriptions
of Sennacherib, in History, Historiography and Interpretation (ed. Hayim Tadmor and
Moshe Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 5875.
8
Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1924).
9
E.g., ANET and COS. More textual work was done by Rykele Borger, Babylonisch-
assyrische Lesestcke (Rome: Pontifium Institutum Biblicum, 1979).
10
The Rassam cylinder is the oldest of the inscriptions, dating only one year after
the campaign (700 b.c.e.). Each subsequent edition of Sennacheribs annals copied the
Rassam text. The long list of booty in the Rassam text is abbreviated in the successive
editions such as the Taylor and Chicago Prisms (which are the texts usually translated
in collections of ancient Near Eastern sources such as ANET and COS); however, the
fullest accounts of Sennacheribs campaign remain the Chicago and Taylor Prisms,
which date to 689 and 691 respectively. Cf. Alan R. Millard, The Eponyms of the
Assyrian Empire 910612 b.c. (SAAS 2; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project,
1994), 50, 88 and 94. N. Naaman (Sennacheribs Letter to God on his Campaign
introduction 3
to Judah, BASOR 214 [1974]: 2539) added to the textual aggregation by examining
two fragmentary tablets, which previously were thought to date from the reigns of
Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II and demonstrated that they were a single description
of the campaign of Sennacherib to Judah in 701 b.c.e. Previously, based mainly on
one of these tablets, it was thought that Uzziah led an anti-Assyrian league in Syria in
738 b.c.e. Cf. Nadav Naaman, Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah and the Date of the
lmlk Stamps, VT 29 (1979): 6186. The most recent work has been done by Walter
Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign of 701 b.c.e.: The Assyrian View, in Like a Bird
in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup
363; ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003], 168200) who rechecked the
inscriptions and published an edition and English translation.
11
Mayers translation (Sennacheribs Campaign, 189).
12
E.g., G. Rawlinson (The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World
[New York: Dodd, 1964], 2.43046) was one of the first to write on the subject after
the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions. When G. Rawlinson asked his brother
Henry (the father of Assyriology) for clarification regarding their disagreements
with the OT/HB, Henry told him that the Assyrian annals were distorted because they
4 introduction
never admit to defeat. As Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign, 169) has observed, This
cut-and-dry explanation became the guiding force for all subsequent interpretation of
Neo-Assyrian historical writings.
13
Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, 2.43046.
14
Ibid., 2.439 n. 4.
15
Wellhausen, Prolegomena.
16
Ibid., 48184.
17
Bernhard Stade, Miscellen: Anmerkungen zu 2 K. 1521, ZAW 6 (1886):
15689.
18
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 73) suggests Account A comes from an archival source
concerned with the temple and its treasury. Similarly, John Van Seters, In Search of
History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 301; Ernst Vogt, Der Aufstand Hiskias und
die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1986), 2433; and Klaas
A. D. Smelik, King Hezekiah Advocates True Prophecy: Remarks on Isaiah xxxvi and
xxxvii // II Kings xviii and xix, in Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and
Moabite Historiography (ed. Klaas A. D. Smelik; OtSt 28; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 93128,
here 124. Steven L. McKenzie (The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book
of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991], 103) argues
that Account A is the most historically reliable biblical account and describes it as a
straightforward historical account without theological commentary . . . likely derived
from official sources. However, if Assyrian annals provide an example of official
accounts, it is unlikely that official accounts lacked theological commentary. Note
introduction 5
the frequent appeal to divine causation in the description of battles, etc. (in the Rassam
cylinder we read the terrifying nature of the weapon of Ashur my lord overwhelmed
his strong cities and many other similar or identical expressions). Honor (Senna-
cheribs Invasion, 36) suggested further isolating vv. 1416 since v. 13 has a parallel
in Isaiah where the rest of Account A is absent. However, as Childs (Assyrian Crisis,
70) points out, vv. 1416 could hardly have stood on their own without an introduc-
tion. Camp posits a complex redactional history behind the putative Account A. See
L. Camp, Hiskija und Hiskijabild: Analyse und Interpretation von 2 Kn 1820 (MTA
9; Altenberge: Telos, 1990), 105.
19
For an interesting theory explaining why, see Christopher R. Seitz, Account A
and the Annals of Sennacherib: A Reassessment, JSOT 58 (1993): 4757.
20
It was thought that if this was the actual progression of events, the narrator would
surely have commented on Sennacheribs treachery. See Stade, Miscellen, 181.
21
Rather than, as Stade (ibid., 174) would expect, bei einem auch nur einigermassen
geschickten Schriftsteller that the author would have written a less incoherent story.
22
Stade (ibid.) saw Sennacheribs reaction to the news of Tirhakah in the narra-
tive as quite surprising. He writes, Ein sonderbarer Feldherr war doch dieser Knig
von Assyrien, wird man denken, da er als Gegenmaregel gegen das ihm gemeldete
Heranrcken der Meroiten eine zweite Gesandschaft gegen dans trotzige Felsennest
Jerusalem absandte. This was thought to establish further the need to separate B1 and
B2, as the rumour merely caused another barrage of negotiations rather than a retreat
and the death of the Assyrian monarch.
6 introduction
23
Though Ian W. Provan (Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the
Debate About the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History [BZAW 172; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1988], 124) insightfully points out that v. 9a is a strange place to conclude
the B1 account, since the whole thrust of the preceding narrative is that, contrary to
Rabshakehs claim, Hezekiah and the people are relying on Yahweh, not Egypt and
if the rumour of Egypts advance is what saves Jerusalem, then Egypt is to be thanked,
not Yahweh.
24
Gray (Kings, 602) suggests that B1 is from a secular source and that B2 is
from a priestly source, due to its connection with the Temple. However, the idea of a
secular source is anachronistic if it is assumed that this source was more objective
or did not see divine intervention, etc. As evidenced in the most secular of Assyrian
annals and other ancient historiography, the gods are always seen as involved in history
and mentioned in annalistic reports. This is, of course, the case in other ancient Near
Eastern cultures as well. See Moshe Weinfeld, Divine Intervention in War in Ancient
Israel and in the Ancient Near East, in History Historiography and Interpretation (ed.
Moshe Weinfeld and Hayim Tadmor; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 12147.
25
Of course, according to source-critical principles, the presence of a doublet would
indicate two sources. Further buttressing the existence of two sources here, Childs
(Assyrian Crisis, 73) emphasized that it is historically implausible that emissaries
would be sent twice.
26
Stade (Miscellen, 176) considered the speeches duplications.
27
Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion.
28
Honor (ibid., xivxv) asserts, none of the hypotheses is so strongly substantiated
by the facts available in the sources, that it may claim greater credence than the others.
introduction 7
29
Childs, Assyrian Crisis.
30
Stade (Miscellen, 175) had found only one conclusion for both B1 and B2
that remained in the narrative. He argued that the editor decided against retaining
two different conclusions to the story (though he was happy to retain the multiple
oracles, etc.).
31
Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 76. This solution was adopted by Wildberger (3 vols.; BKAT
10; Jesaja 2839 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982], 3.1376), though he suggested
that the beginning of v. 36 should be added to the end of Childs conclusion to B2.
32
Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 120.
33
Childs (ibid., 70) writes, The Herodotus account continues to be used by some
American scholars to defend an historical kernel theory . . . In the light of the tremen-
dous problems associated with this legend, this procedure appears to me unjustified.
An exception to this attitude towards Herodotus story is seen in Laato (Assyrian
Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib,
VT 45 [1995]: 198226) who argues that both the angel and the mice refer to a plague
which killed not only many in the Assyrian camp, but also many in Jerusalem referred
to in Isa 22:2.
8 introduction
R. E. Clements tackled the problem in his book Isaiah and the Deliv-
erance of Jerusalem.34 Clements explicitly states that he is in agreement
with Childs source-critical conclusions. However, he also clearly states
his dissatisfaction with Childs historical conclusion, which awaited
further extra-biblical evidence to solve the problem. Since there already
is an abundant amount of extra-biblical evidence and the chances of
discovering more are slim, Clements instead sought to solve the histori-
cal problem by demonstrating the fictional character of B2s conclusion
(the angel of Yahwehs attack on the Assyrian camp). He examined
the oracles of Isaiah to determine whether the prophet predicted such
a deliverance, or whether there was any other evidence of this angelic
intervention in authentic oracles, concluding in the negative.35 Clements
argued that the oracles in the book of Isaiah offer no support at all
to the belief that Jerusalem had been the scene of a quite unexpected
defeat of the Assyrians.36 Through a selective use of Isaianic oracles,
Clements argued that Isaiah predicted that Jerusalem would fall (e.g.,
Isa 31:4) but when his prediction did not come true and the people
rejoiced in their survival, he rebuked the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Clements seems most interested to prove there was clearly no
miraculous deliverance or promise of special protection by Yahweh.
Clements conveniently asserts that Isaianic passages that seem to predict
that Assyria will be punished come almost certainly from 722 b.c.e.,
shortly after the destruction of Samaria, and are not actually related to
Sennacheribs invasion.37 Contrary to the cautious conclusions of Honor
34
Clements, Deliverance of Jerusalem.
35
At one point Clements notes that if Isaiah had predicted a miraculous deliverance
and promulgated the Zion tradition of Jerusalems inviolability he would have been an
exceedingly dangerous and misleading kind of prophet (ibid., 26). However, Clements
has no problem seeing the book of Isaiah (though not the actual prophecies of Isaiah of
Jerusalem) being dangerous and misleading as they contributed to Jeremiahs problems
when Babylon threatened the city of David. Which is more problematic to be seen as
dangerousa tentative reconstruction of a prophets original oracles, or the biblical
book attributed to the prophet? Alternatively, if Isaiah did suggest such a deliverance
back in 701, he would have been proved correct in his time, as Jerusalem did not fall.
But if the oracles speaking of such a deliverance were written in the Josianic period
(as Clements suggests) they would be much more dangerous as they contributed to an
improper belief in Jerusalems chances against the Babylonian threat.
36
Ibid., 35.
37
He compares the use of these early oracles of Isaiah in relation to Sennacheribs
invasion to be the result of Josianic editors and a process of midrashic elaboration
of Isaianic prophecies (ibid., 53). This Josianic identification of the editors is, of
course, dependent on the well-known theory of Hermann Barths (Die Jesaja-Worte
in der Josiazeit [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977]) regarding a Josianic
introduction 9
redaction of Isaiah. (Clements also suggested that there was also a Babylonian redac-
tion where first Isaiahs prophecies regarding Assyria were reapplied to Babylon after
the destruction of Jerusalem.)
38
Clements, Deliverance of Jerusalem, 36.
39
He justifies this since this account has been very fully and critically examined
by B. S. Childs in relatively recent years, and since I am largely in agreement with his
main literary conclusions. . . . (ibid., 53).
40
Christof Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzhlkom-
munikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzhlungen in II
Reg 1820 und Jer 3740 (BZAW 187; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).
41
He writes, eine von B1 abhngige und korrigierend auf sie bezogene Nachinter-
pretation (ibid., 15. See also 15759).
42
Ibid., 15456.
43
Eberhard Ruprecht (Die ursprngliche Komposition der Hiskia-Jesaja-Erzhlun-
gen und ihre Umstrukturierung durch den Verfasser des deuteronomistischen Ge-
schichtswerkes, ZTK 87 [1990]: 3366) argues similarly that the narrative was written
in 588 to encourage Jerusalemites under the Babylonian threat, though his posited text
is slightly different from Hardmeiers (2 Kgs 18:13, 1719a, 3637 + 20:118).
10 introduction
rise to this fictive creation was the temporary Babylonian retreat in 588
due to the advance of the Egyptians under the new pharaoh Apries.44
Hardmeier proposed that the latter event is mirrored in the retreat of
the Assyrians after hearing of an Egyptian advance (2 Kgs 19:9). Thus,
the narrative was written (Erzhlsituation) with the same background
(but opposite perspective) as that of Jeremiah 3740.45 Its purpose was
to embolden resistance to the Babylonians and counter Jeremiahs mes-
sage of submission to the Babylonian yoke.46 Hardmeier offered that
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative was later mistakenly interpreted
as history instead of the fallacious propaganda that it was. By positing
the historical background to the narrative as the impending siege of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, Hardmeier rejected the broad consensus
that at least part of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is historical.
Most scholarship has not been willing to accept Hardmeiers (albeit
creative) suggestion that the entire narrative is fictional. The major diffi-
culty with accepting his thesis is its lack of explanatory power regarding
the survival of the narrative in light of the events of 587.47 If written in
588 to oppose Jeremianic circles, when Jerusalem fell shortly thereafter,
vindicating Jeremiahs position and confuting the oppositions stance,
why would this fictive narrative have been preserved? Since Jeremiah
was retrospectively regarded as the true prophet, vindicated by histor-
ical events, if the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative was written to defy
Jeremiahs positions, it is difficult to believe it would be adopted into
the History. This is especially difficult to envision if it was as recent a
story as Hardmeier suggests.
F. J. Gonalves study Lexpdition de Sennachrib en Palestine dans
la littrature hbraque ancienne followed the Stade-Childs hypoth-
44
As recorded in Jer. 37:110; also Herodotus Hist. 2.161 and Diodorus Siculus
1.68.1.
45
Similarly, Stephan de Jong (Hizkiah en Zedekia; Over de verhouding van 2 Kon.
18:1719:37/Jes. 3637 tot Jer. 37:110, ACEBT 5 [1984]: 135146) proposed that
the similarity between Jeremiah 37 and the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is due to
the latter being based on the former. De Jong views Hezekiah as the counterpart of
Zedekiah, but as one who trusts in Yahweh instead of Egypt like Zedekiah.
46
As Hardmeiers original title puts it, Die Polemik gegan Ezechiel und Jeremia in
den Hiskia-Jesaja-Erzhlungen.
47
This has been labelled the fatal flaw of the book by Christopher R. Seitz in his
review of Christof Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzhlkom-
munikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzhlungen in II
Reg 1820 und Jer 3740, JBL 110 (1991): 51113.
introduction 11
esis for the most part.48 Gonalves delineates the sources as: Source
Alargely from a Judean annal; B1composed in the mid 7th cen-
tury b.c.e.; B2composed in the postexilic period and a rewriting of
B1.49 B2 alone has the decimation of Sennacheribs army by the angel
of Yahweh and is the final version of this episode.50 Gonalves adds to
the source-critical analysis by detecting a seam between B1 and B2 in
2 Kgs 19:9 which he attributes to a later redactor. Part of his (perhaps
circular) reasoning for this conclusion is the reference to Tirhakah as
the King of Cush, which is explained away by his attribution of this
reference to a later redactor. Sennacheribs death in 2 Kgs 19:37 is also
seen as a secondary redactional seam. In addition, Gonalves further
atomizes the sources, determining that even source A is composite.
B1 is considered the most unified of the three literary sources, though
its historicity is minimal. Regarding the oracles of Isaiah, Gonalves
holds a position close to that of Clements, arguing that the historical
Isaiah was opposed to rebellion against Assyria and that the book of
Isaiah misrepresents the historical Isaiah.51 However, his conclusions
are based on tentative literary judgments and the removal of a signifi-
cant amount of allegedly secondary material, which leaves little hard
evidence to support his arguments.
Contrary to most scholars, W. R. Gallaghers monograph, Sen-
nacheribs Campaign to Judah, approaches all the sources as largely
reliableeven Account B.52 In his analysis of both speeches by the
Rabshakeh he concludes in favour of their historicity (he argues that
Isa 10:519 is a summary of this speech and contemporary to these
events). Gallagher even argues that many Assyrians died in the campaign
through disease in the camp and he is sympathetic to the idea that the
angel of the Lord is representative of this plague.53 However, he sees
48
Francolino J. Gonalves, Lexpdition de Sennachrib en Palestine dans la littrature
hbraque ancienne (Ebib 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1986).
49
Ibid., 409, 410, 439, 538, 539.
50
Ibid., 540, 47884.
51
In support of this conclusion Gonalves (ibid., 326) looks to Micah and suggests
that his opposition to the inviolability of Zion was shared by the historical Isaiah. Any
oracles that suggest Isaiah was otherwise are relegated to a later redactor. However,
unlike Clements he does not believe the doctrine of inviolability had its origin in Josianic
times, but must have been present much earlier as Mic 3:11 suggests.
52
William R. Gallagher, Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE
18; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999).
53
Similarly, William Hardy McNeill (Plagues and Peoples [Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor,
1976) has pointed to the effect of disease in similar situations. In a later article he
12 introduction
suggests that disease was a major factor in Sennacheribs inability to take Jerusalem
(The Greatest Might-Have-Been of All, NYRB 46 [1999]: 62).
54
Ehud Ben Zvi, Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When? JBL 109 (1990):
7992; and Dominic Rudman, Is the Rabshakeh Also Among the Prophets? A Rhe-
torical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 1735, VT 50 (2000): 10010. Contra Chaim Cohen,
Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Saq, IOS 9 (1979):
3248; Peter Machinist, The Rab Saqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in
the Face of the Assyrian Other, HS 41 (2000): 15168; and Moshe Weinfeld, Cult
Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy, JNES 23 (1964):
20212.
55
Ben Zvi (Who Wrote the Speech, 92) proposes that this memory prevented the
biblical writer from putting the speech into the mouth of a more important Assyrian
such as the Tartan or Sennacherib himself. He concludes the speech was not con-
temporary with the events and speculates dating its composition to post-monarchic
Judah. Smelik (King Hezekiah, 98128) also argues that the speeches of the Assyrians
in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narratives are free compositions of the author.
56
In this way Rudman (Rabshakeh, 101) justifies his references to the second
speech as well.
introduction 13
57
Peter Dubovsk, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-
Assyrian Intelligence Services and its Significance for 2 Kings 1819 (BibOr 49; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006), 23839.
58
Unlike Rudmans (Rabshakeh) article (which is never acknowledged or refer-
enced, Dubovsk does cite Ben Zvis article (Who Wrote the Speech) several times
(4, 22, 241, 258), but does not acknowledge any of his arguments regarding the biblical
language found in the Rabshakehs speech.
59
Ibid., 25. In a more recent article (Assyrian Downfall Through Isaiahs Eyes
(2 Kings 1523): The Historiography of Representation, Bib [2008): 116), Dubovsks
utmost confidence in the Stade-Childs hypothesis is seen when he asserts, Several
studies have proved that the [Hezekiah-Sennacherib] text is the combination of sources
A and B (emphasis mine) (1). To the best of my knowledge this is the most confident
statement in this regard in the literature. After all, it is known as a hypothesis, not
an axiom.
60
Oddly, Dubovsk never acknowledges the work of Stade or Childs, but merely
quotes Cogan and Tadmor to support the source delineations of A, B1 and B2. Cf.
Dubovsk, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies, 45.
61
Ibid., 241.
62
Of course, there have been various modifications of the source-critical conclu-
sions. E.g., J. Le Moyne (Les deux ambassades de Sennachrib Jrusalem; Recherches
sur lvolution dune tradition, in Melanges bibliques rdigs en lhonneur de Andr
Robert [Paris: Bloud [et] Gay, 1957], 14953) separates Rabshakehs speech in 2 Kings
18 into two speeches, then suggests joining the second speech to Account B2. Another
14 introduction
modification was proposed by Manfred Hutter (Hiskija, Knig von Juda: Ein Beitrag
zur judischen Geschichte in assyrischer Zeit [GtS 9; Graz, Austria: Institut fr kume-
nische Theologie und Patrologie an der Universitt Graz, 1982], 1116) who argued
that 2 Kgs 18:1719:19 was one unit. He writes 18,1719, 14 (wahrscheinlich sogar
bis 19,19) knnen als einheitlicher Text gelten. Scholars have not followed his lead.
Raymond F. Person (The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions [BZAW 252;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997], 4774; and idem, II Kings 1820 and Isaiah 3639: A Text
Critical Case Study in the Redaction History of the Book of Isaiah, ZAW 111 [1999]:
37379) modified the hypothesis on text-critical grounds suggesting that 2 Kgs 18:13
belongs with 2 Kgs 18:1737 and that 2 Kgs 18:1416 is a later addition. He writes,
Hence the Stade-Childs hypothesis is rejected (Kings-Isaiah, 7677). However, he still
separates most of the putative Account A from B. Also, he posits multiple redactions
behind his Urtext, which prevents it from being very compelling or serving as a real
contradiction to the Stade-Childs hypothesis. E.g., Nadav Naaman (Updating the
Messages: Hezekiahs Second Prophetic Story [2 Kings 19.9b35] and the Community
of Babylonian Deportees, in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701
b.c.e. [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003], 202-03) argues that since the combination of B1 and B2 would have taken place
before it was employed by the editor of Isaiah, Persons reconstruction of what he
called Urtext could not shed light on the Stade-Childs hypothesis of the two prophetic
stories. Ernst Wrthwein (Die Bcher der Knige: 1. Kn. 172. Kn. 25 [ATD 11; Gt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984], 41519) separates the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative into four accounts by separating B1 into two independent traditions: 1) a
speech to the people (18:2829, 31ab, 32a, 36a) and 2) an address to the king
(18:1821, 2324, 3637) with vv. 2627 joining the two together. 2 Kgs 18:22, 25,
30, 31b35 and 19:17 are later DH elaborations which brought these traditions into
their canonical form. Wrthwein supports his source delineations by the resumptive
repetition of ( and he stood) in 2 Kgs 18:28 from back in 2 Kgs 18:17, assert-
ing that 2 Kgs 18:2627 were created as a transition. However, the repetition of this
verb does not seem significant enough to bear the weight of his analysis. Wrthwein
also distinguishes many later exilic and Persian period additions and ends up dividing
the text into six strands. His translation indicates all the layers and traditions, but it
seems to be an unnecessarily complex conclusion. See Wrthwein, 1. Kn. 172. Kn.
25, 41518; 42527. See the critique by Hardmeier (Prophetie im Streit, 156, n. 113).
As Smelik (King Hezekiah, 96) has commented is it not possible to solve these
problems in a less complex way? Smelik argues for the integrity of the B narrative as
a free composition of the author, rejecting the Stade-Childs hypothesis. Ingrid Hjelm
(Jerusalems Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition [London: T&T Clark,
2004], 102-03) has also rejected the Stade-Childs hypothesis without analyzing the
problem in detail (asserting that we do not need to dwell with this discussion long)
instead merely citing Smeliks work to dismiss it.
63
Hardmeier (Prophetie im Streit, 15759), of course, rejects the A-B1 division, but
argues that B2 is secondary.
introduction 15
A. Historical Reconstructions
In addition to the consensus regarding source-critical conclusions,
the historical event is usually reconstructed along one of three lines.
1) Sennacherib invades the Levant in 701, lays waste the towns of
Judah, besieges Jerusalem, causing Hezekiah to pay heavy tribute and
then returns to Assyria victorious. 2) Sennacherib attacks in 701, lays
waste the towns of Judea, but after laying siege to Jerusalem, for reasons
unknown, lifts the siege and returns to Assyria, after which Hezekiah
sends tribute. 3) Sennacherib attacks in 701 according to the lines of
the first reconstruction, but returns for a second campaign sometime
in the early 7th century (ca. 688).65 This time he does not emerge as
64
E.g., E. Theodore Mullen describes these chapters as one of the most complex
and confusing narrations of events contained in the Hebrew Bible (Crime and
Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries, CBQ 54
[1992]: 23148).
65
The theory goes back to Rawlinson (The Five Great Monarchies). So Raymond
P. Dougherty, Sennacherib and the Walled Cities of Judah, JBL 49 (1930): 16071;
William Foxwell Albright, New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and the His-
tory of Israel and Judah, BASOR 130 (1953): 811; Bright, History, 26769, 28287;
and Cornelis van Leeuwen, Sanchrib devant Jrusalem, OTS 14 (1965): 24572.
More recently, the theory was defended by William H. Shea (Sennacheribs Second
Palestinian campaign, JBL 104 [1985]: 40118; idem, The New Tirhakah Text and
Sennacheribs Second Palestinian Campaign, AUSS 35 [1997]: 18187; idem, Jerusalem
Under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice? BAR 25 [1999]: 36; idem, Hezekiah,
Sennacherib and Tirhakah: A Brief Rejoinder, 45 [2000]: 3738). Cf. Christopher T.
Begg, Sennacheribs Second Palestinian Campaign: An Additional Indication, 106
(1987): 68586.
However, there have been many very critical responses: see Siegfried H. Horn, Did
Sennacherib Campaign Once or Twice Against Hezekiah? AUSS 4 (1966): 128; Frank
J. Yurco, Sennacheribs Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku,
Serapis 6 (1980): 22140; idem, The Shabaka-Shebitku Coregency and the Supposed
Second Campaign of Sennacherib Against Judah: A Critical Assessment, JBL 110
(1991): 3545; Robert D. Bates, Assyria and Rebellion in the Annals of Sennacherib:
An Analysis of Sennacheribs Treatment of Hezekiah, NEASB 44 (1999): 3961; and
idem, Could Taharqa Have Been Called to the Battle of Eltekeh? A Response to Wil-
liam H. Shea, NEASB 46 (2001): 436; Mordechai Cogan, Sennacheribs Siege of
Jerusalem: Once or Twice? BAR 27 (2001): 40; A. K. Jenkins, Hezekiahs Fourteenth
Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings 18:1319:37, VT 26 (1976): 28498; Carl D.
Evans, Judahs Foreign Policy from Hezekiah to Josiah, in Scripture in Context: Essays
on the Comparative Method (ed. Carl D. Evans, et al.; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980),
15778; Kenneth. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100650 b.c.)
(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986), 550; Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit, 164; Donald
B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University
16 introduction
Press, 1992), 354 n. 165; and Eckart Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfOB
26; Horn: Selbstverlag des Instituts fr Orientalistik der Universitt Wein, Druck F.
Berger & Shne, 1997), 10.
Though rejecting the normal theory, yet another two-invasion hypothesis as been
proposed by Bob Becking (Chronology: A Skeleton Without Flesh? Sennacheribs
Campaign as a Case-Study, in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in
701 b.c.e. [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2003], 4072). Based on the reference to Hezekiahs fourteenth year, he pro-
poses that this reflects an invasion by Sargon II in 715 b.c.e. He suggests that the B
narrative reflects this invasion but that the rest of Account A, 2 Kgs 18:1416, reflects
Sennacheribs invasion in 701 b.c.e. Beckings hypothesis is very close to that proposed
by Jenkins years ago (Hezekiahs Fourteenth Year, 28498). Goldberg (Two Assyrian
Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology, Bib 80
[1999]: 36090) argued that 2 Kgs 18:1316 originally referred to a limited invasion by
Sargon in 712 b.c.e. which was later conflated with that of the 701 b.c.e. invasion.
66
Though Richard D. Nelson cautions that discussions of bubonic plague or Sen-
nacheribs two campaigns when we read of this angelic attack are really inappropriate
and evidence of our inability to read these narratives as anything more than history
(The Anatomy of the Book of Kings, JSOT 40 [1988]: 3948).
67
Note that two campaign theorists also hold to the same division of sources held
by those who posit only one campaign of Sennacherib in the southern Levant.
68
E.g., Bright, History, 285. This rejection of any correlation between Herodotus and
the biblical account is based largely on the understanding that 2 Kgs 19:35 narrates
the Assyrian army undergoing a catastrophic defeat before the walls of Jerusalem
(Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings [CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 369). E.g., Mordechai
Cogan and Hayim Tadmor (II Kings [AB 11; Garden City: Doubleday, 1988], 251)
presuppose that the destruction of the Assyrian army is supposed to have taken place
at Jerusalem as they reject the relevance of Herodotus description of a similar defeat
due to the distance between Jerusalem and Pelusium.
introduction 17
69
J. Alberto Soggin, A History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985),
233, 237. Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 242) suggest that B1 portrays a besieged
Jerusalem and compares this account with another appearance of Assyrian emissaries
before the walls of a besieged city found in the Nimrud letter.
70
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:303).
71
Similarly, when Sennacherib boasts of the siege of Babylon the Annals record, I
laid siege to that city; with mines and siege machines, yet such language is not used
of Jerusalem. See Sennacherib: The Capture and Destruction of Babylon, translated
by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119E:305).
72
David Ussishkin, The Camp of the Assyrians in Jerusalem, IEJ 29 (1979):
13742. However, Stephanie Dalley (Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for
Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh, JSOT 28 [2004]: 387401) has argued
that when Josephus refers to the said camp outside of Jerusalem, he was referring to
the camp of Nebuchadnezzar II, and suffering from the same confusion as the book
of Judith which called Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians who ruled in Nineveh.
(Judith 1:1 reads, It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled
over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. . . .)
73
Arie van der Kooij, Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701
v. Chr, ZDPV 102 (1986): 93109.
74
E.g., Tadmor, Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographi-
cal Considerations, Zion 50 (1985): 6580; Mayer, Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer
(ALASP 9; Munster: Ugarit, 1995); and Sennacheribs Campaign, 168200. Mayer
(Sennacheribs Campaign, 181) argues that the Assyrians did not directly set up
siege works but instead Sennacherib had a series of . . . forts built around Hezekiahs
territory . . . . [which] could rattle Judean territory, control access routes and prevent
18 introduction
Jerusalemites from going out from the gate. The argument against reading the Annals
as referring to a siege surrounds two statements: 1) like a bird in a cage and 2) I
laid out earthworks/forts against him. Mayer points out that the first phrase is often
used to describe a cornered position rather than a military siege (ibid., 179). Tadmor
calls this phrase hyperbole . . . a face-saving device to cover for a failure to take the
enemys capital and punish the rebellious king. See The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser
III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, With Introductions, Translations and Commen-
tary (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 79, n. 11. Mayer
(Sennacheribs Campaign, 179) points out that the verb used in this phrase means
to enclose, confine (see AHw: 252; CAD E: 3345) and is not the normal Assyrian
verb for besieging, lam (see AHw: 541; CAD L: 6977), which is never applied to
Jerusalem. For the second statement in question, Mayer translates the Akkadogram
URU.H AL-SU.ME as forts rather than the common translation siege walls. See
AHW: 3134; CAD H: 5152. Gallagher (Sennacheribs Campaign, 133) also translates
URU.H AL-SU.ME as forts.
75
David Ussishkin (Sennacheribs Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish,
and Jerusalem, in Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to
Nadav Naaman [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 352), though he still holds
that Josephus reference to the Assyrian camp was the place where the Assyrian task
force pitched its camp outside Jerusalem, relying solely on the literary evidence.
76
E.g., the siege of Jerusalem in 701 b.c.e. is explicitly referred to in the follow-
ing studies: Dubovsk, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies, 26, 28, 231; Niels P. Lemche,
Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (BS 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 70;
Burke O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), 205; Gary
N. Knoppers, Prayer and Propaganda: The Dedication of Solomons Temple and the
Deuteronomists Program, CBQ 57 (1995): 22954; Shea, Jerusalem Under Siege,
36; Machinist, The Rab Saqeh, 154; Rudman, Rabshakeh, 100; Cogan, Senna-
cheribs Siege of Jerusalem, 40; Fritz, Kings, 363; Hjelm, Jerusalems Rise, 33; and Mario
Liverani, Israels History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox, 2005), 148. Note
also the title of Cogans translation of Sennacheribs campaign against the Levant as
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem (COS 2.119B:302).
77
Iain W. Provan, Philips V. Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of
Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 274.
introduction 19
78
Mayer, Sennacheribs Campaign, 171.
79
The correspondence between the putative Account A and Assyrian annals has
been widely argued. E.g., Bright (History, 297) asserts that Account A is remarkably
corroborated by the Assyrian annals. Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 73) also saw essential
agreement between these accounts. Examples could be multiplied of inaccurate readings
of Account A. Another example is Mullen (Crime and Punishment, 245) who states
that in 18:1316, [Account A] the text notes that Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem
in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. John B. Geyer (2 Kings 18:1416 and the Annals
of Sennacherib, VT 21 [1971]: 604-06) has helpfully drawn attention to the lack of
correspondence in this regard between the putative Account A and Sennacheribs
Annals since the former does not narrate a siege.
80
Lester L. Grabbe, ed., Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701
(JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). Becking (Chronol-
ogy, 6364) notes that 2 Kings 1820 is part of the so-called deuteronomistic history
perhaps implying his reservations with the theory. Naaman (Updating the Messages,
21620) is the only article that actually refers to Dtr. Ehud Ben Zvi notes the context
of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, noting it is a part of what may be called the
deuteronomistic collection of historical books which may imply he does not adhere to
the theory but acknowledges the popular nomenclature. See Ben Zvi, Malleability and
its Limits: Sennacheribs Campaign Against Judah as a Case-Study, in Like a Bird in
a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363;
ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 80. In the final chapter Reflections
on the Discussion it is noted that Ben Zvi puts the final composition of 2 Kgs 1820
to the postexilic period (312).
20 introduction
81
A not so subtle statement in this regard is found by Lemche when he writes,
we can disregard 200 years of biblical scholarship and commit it to the dustbin. It is
hardly worth the paper on which it is printed (On the Problems of Reconstructing
Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History, in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion
of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003], 157). Another reason may be the lack of focus on the biblical text in the articles
in the book, as only three (by Becking, Ben Zvi, and Naaman) of the nine articles really
examine the biblical text (the others focusing on philosophy of history, Herodotus,
archaeology, epigraphy, or iconography). Thomas L. Thompson has gone on record to
state that Noths contributions were simply the misdirection of our field [of scholar-
ship] as he attempted to undermine systematically and reject the entirety of Noths
work (Martin Noth and the History of Israel, in The History of Israels Traditions: The
Heritage of Martin Noth [ed. Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham; JSOTSup
182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 8190).
82
Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 70.
83
Clements, Deliverance of Jerusalem, 53.
84
That is, unless it is rejected outright, in which case some discussion of this rejec-
tion should be included in the study.
introduction 21
85
The literature on the subject is extensive and will not be comprehensively cited here.
Many good summaries are easily accessible. E.g., Steven L. McKenzie, Deuteronomistic
History, ABD 2:160168; and Thomas Rmer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History:
A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
86
E.g., Wellhausen (Prolegomena, 280) argued that Judges, Samuel and Kings were
impressed by religious ideals of the exile typified in Deuteronomy, writing, it came
into existence under the influence of Deuteronomy which pervaded the whole century
of the exile. Even before Wellhausen, Heinrich Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis
Christus [Gttingen: Dieterich, 184359], 196) argued that the editing of the historical
books was according to Deuteronomic ideas (deuteronomische Ansichen).
87
Martin Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943).
The first part of this work was translated into English as, The Deuteronomistic History
(JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).
88
Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 1217. Noth argued that Deut 1:14:43; 31:113;
34 were written by Dtr and not original to the Deuteronomic code.
89
The inserted speeches Noth isolated were Deuteronomy 31 (Moses), Josh 1:1115;
23 (Joshua) and 1 Samuel 12 (Samuel) and 1 Kgs 8:1461 (Solomon). Noths sum-
marizing narratives are in Joshua 12, Judg 2:1123 and 2 Kgs 17:723 (ibid., 56). To
this list of Dtr speeches, Dennis J. McCarthy (II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the
Deuteronomic History, JBL 84 [1965]: 131138) added 2 Samuel 7 which he suggested
fills the same function as the key passages picked out by Noth (131). Others have
also argued for additional Dtr compositions above those acknowledged by Noth. See
Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon
and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 5253; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1.2627; and
Helen A. Kenik, Design for Kingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in
1 Kings 3:415 (ed. Robert R. Wilson; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983).
90
Gary N. Knoppers, introduction to Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Stud-
ies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville;
SBTS 8; Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 2.
91
Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 2) asserts, The literary-critical foundation was laid
long ago and has produced generally accepted conclusions. Elsewhere he notes, The
22 introduction
careful analysis of Deuteronomy-Kings which literary critics have carried out . . . can be
considered definitive (76). His acceptance of these conclusions can be seen throughout
this work (e.g., p. 20 [Budde]; p. 47 [Wellhausen]; pp. 5457 [Rost]; etc.).
92
Frank M. Cross, The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the
Deuteronomistic History, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1973), 275 (originally published as: The Structure of the
Deuteronomic History, in Perspectives in Jewish Learning [ed. J. M. Rosenthal; ACJS
3; Chicago: College of Jewish Studies, 1968], 924).
93
E.g., Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; London:
SCM Press, 1953), 84; Hans Walter Wolff, Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerk, ZAW 73 (1961): 171186; Rudolf Smend, Das Gesetz und die Vlker:
Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistishen Redaktionsgeschichte, in Probleme biblischer The-
ologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad (ed. Hans Walter Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971),
494509; Cross, Themes of the Book of Kings, 274289; and Walter Dietrich, Prophetie
und Geschichte; eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).
94
Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 84; Wolff, Das Kerygma, 171186.
95
Cross, Themes of the Book of Kings, 274289.
96
Noting how Josiah fulfils the Davidic ideal in the DH and how Josiah is proph-
esied about by name centuries before his arrival on the scene. This prophecy shows
how Josiah was central to the book and fulfilled the hopes of the writers. In fact,
when his regnal resum is read it seems to resemble the eulogy of Moses himself in
Deuteronomy 34with reference that there was never a king like Josiah before who
turned to Yahweh with all his heart, soul and might according to Moses law and
there was no king like him after.
introduction 23
97
E.g., Steven L. McKenzie, The Chroniclers Use of the Deuteronomistic History
(HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); idem, The Trouble with Kings; Knoppers,
Two Nations Under God; and Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deu-
teronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). Richard E. Friedman
(The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly
Works [Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981]) has also argued for a two-stage process
for the DH. Brian Peckham (The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History [HSM
35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985]) supports a two-staged theory but is very different
from these other studies in the specifics. Of course this theory is supported outside
the confines of Harvard as well. Cf. Andrew D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between
Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London:
SCM Press, 1983); and Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings.
98
Smend, Das Gesetz, 494509.
99
This three part redactional theory actually owes more to Smends student, Dietrich
(Prophetie und Geschichte).
100
Martin Rose agrees with the Gttingen school that there are three themes of
history, prophetism and law but does not see the necessity of using them for literary
aims in developing different redactional layers in the DH. The three terms are constitu-
ent together of the literary conception of the work. See Deuteronomistic Ideology
and Theology of the Old Testament, in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic
Historiography in Recent Research (ed. Albert de Pury, et al.; JSOTSup 306; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 437.
24 introduction
101
Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 84) argued that Dtr often incorporated traditions
which did not fit in with his central ideas.
102
Similarly, von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy, 7479) had highlighted the theme
of judgment and a counter theme of grace.
103
For Dietrich the promise to David represents the interests of the royalty (DtrG)
and the sins of Jeroboam represents the interests of the prophets (DtrP). The Smend
hypothesis seems more open to criticism since these redactions lack a historical basis.
The strength of Cross approach is locating these redactions in a historical situation
and a basis for distinguishing the layers on this and a theological basis. The Smend
hypothesis seems to find different redactions based on different issues like prophecy
or lawwhich do not seem so different that they would require different editions.
There is also the problem, in my mind, of postulating three redactions in so brief a
period of time.
104
This is similar to Wolff s (Das Kerygma, 171186) suggestion that the DH
includes the theme of reciprocal movement between Israel and Yahwehs word where
God does not abandon his people if they repent ().
105
E.g., Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 7479; and Wolff, Das Kerygma. Wolff agrees
with Noths hypothesis that the DH was the product of essentially a single author,
despite judgment and hope being located in the one work.
106
As Kenik (Design for Kingship, 11) writes, There is a weakness in the conclusions
offered . . . in that each focuses upon a single theme which leads to a single message of
either disaster or the possibility for salvation. One single kerygmatic thrust is isolated
in each case as if the document were simplistic in its content.
107
Noths position of Dtr as a single writer situated in the exile has been supported
by some recent studies. See Hans Detlef Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchun-
gen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66;
Zrich: Theologischer, 1980); T. Raymond Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC 13; Waco, Tex.: Word,
1985), xxivxxv; Burke O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature
(FOTL 9; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 1418; and J. Gordon McConville,
Narrative and Meaning in the Book of Kings, Bib 70 (1989): 3149. Even Nelson
introduction 25
111
E.g., Knoppers, Introduction, 2; McKenzie, The Book of Kings in the Deuter-
onomistic History, in The History of Israels Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
(ed. Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham; JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994), 284.
112
As Knoppers (Introduction, 2) has pointed out Noths presentation of the
Deuteronomist as both author and redactor was ingenious.
113
Ibid., 78. E.g., Cogan (I Kings [AB 10; Garden City: Doubleday, 2001]) com-
ments on the stylistics and editorial procedure of Dtr, asserting that he does not
seem to have made any effort at erasing the telltale signs of the individual sources;
each was left to speak out in its own distinctive idiom and particular statementhence
its visibility (95). Similarly, P. Kyle McCarter, Jar, The Apology of David, JBL 99
(1980): 489504.
114
E.g., Thomas Rmer has argued for extensive Dtr editing in the book of Deuter-
onomy (besides the well known Deuteronomistic framing, etc.). See Le Deutronome
la qute des origines, in Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches (ed. P. Haudebert; LD
151; Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1992), 6598. McKenzie (The Trouble with Kings, 6180,
15364) has argued that the prophetic speeches against Northern Kings are more
extensively edited by Dtr than previously supposed.
115
Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 76. Emphasis mine.
116
Ibid., 11.
introduction 27
II. Methodology
117
John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical
Criticism (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 26162.
118
Contra Cogan, I Kings, 95. Quite unambiguously Noth (Deuteronomistic His-
tory, 84) writes, Dtr. was not a redactor trying to make corrections, but a compiler
of historical traditions and a narrator of the history of his people. Gerhard Von Rad
(The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays [Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966])
seemed to read him this way as he maintains that Noth has shown conclusively that
this great work [= DH] is not the result of literary redaction, but fully deserves without
qualification the rarely-merited designation of historical writing (221). Contra John
Barton (Redaction Criticism [Old Testament], ABD 5:644) who refers to Noths
work as important works on the redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua
2 Kings). Van Seters (Edited Bible, esp. 26076) has argued at length that Noth has
been misunderstood by most of scholarship and has been viewed as espousing Dtr
as editor rather than author. Others have criticized Noth for his inability to state
whether Dtr was an author or editor. E.g., Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen, 1521;
and Peckham, Composition, 1.
119
Regarding the writing of a history of Sennacheribs invasion and what is needed
in light of the discussion of the problems, Thomas L. Thompson asserts, A thorough
literary analysis is needed. See Grabbe, Reflections on the Discussion, 323.
120
As Duane F. Watson and Alan J. Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A
Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method [BibIntS 4; Leiden:
Brill, 1994], 3, n. 2) assert, the phrase literary criticism needs to be understood as
it would be by scholars working outside the field of biblical studies who use the term
28 introduction
This study will ask these source-critical questions again and follow that
critical procedure from the beginning. However, our source-critical
conclusions must then take into account the insights made available
through newer literary criticism, which seems surprisingly well suited
to answer Habels questions.126
126
As Barton questions, Why should traditional historical critics and newer literary
interpreters not engage together with the question of what we mean by calling a text
incoherent or inconsistent? See Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is
There Any Common Ground? in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpreta-
tion in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, et al.; BibIntS 8; Leiden:
Brill, 1994), 315, here, 12.
127
E.g., Arie van der Kooij (The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings
1819): A Sample of Ancient Historiography, in Past, Present, Future: The Deuter-
onomistic History and the Prophets [ed. Johannes C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy;
OtSt 44; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 105) has examined the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
as a literary unit, but states at the outset, . . . it cannot be denied that the text, from a
literary-critical point of view, is comprised of three parts [A, B1 and B2] but notes
that it can be read as a coherent story. Similarly, Yairah Amit (Reading Biblical
Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress,
2001], 25) argues that preceding rhetorical literary analysis, the first stage in analyzing
a biblical story must be to obtain the information provided by Bible criticism about
the particular text. That is, before applying the new method, the critic will assume
the conclusions of source criticism. Recently David Bostock (A Portrayal of Trust: The
Theme of Faith in the Hezekiah Narratives [PBM; Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster,
2006]) has undertaken a narrative-critical reading of the Hezekiah narratives without
any concern for source-critical or historical questions. He acknowledges that the
writer of 2 Kings 18:1319:37 may have used two or more sources though he notes
the debate concerning their delineation (42).
128
E.g., Hardmeier (Prophetie im Streit, 15, 157159) insisted on reading Account
A in its present narrative context, appealing to the drama of the narrative to explain
the problem of the siege of Jerusalem subsequent to the payment of tribute.
30 introduction
129
Of course, new literary criticism is actually a rubric under which a variety of
different methods may be found (e.g., new criticism, formalism, structuralism, nar-
rative criticism, etc.). In order to distinguish these methods from the older literary
criticism (which I refer to as source criticism), this paper will refer to these new
approaches as rhetorical criticism. For surveys of the assumptions and methods of
new literary approaches to the Bible, see: Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives; J. Cheryl
Exum and David J. A. Clines, eds., The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible
(JSOTSup 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993; David M. Gunn and Danna N. Fewell,
Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1993); Paul R. House,
Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (SBTS 2; Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992); Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan 1992); Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches
to Biblical Interpretation (FCI 3; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, 1987); and
John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1984).
130
Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 105106. E.g., James Muilenburg, Form
Criticism and Beyond, JBL 99 (1969): 118. Many of the early works highlighting the
poetics of the OT/HB were in Hebrew initially and only secondarily translated into
English. E.g., Meir Weiss, The Bible From Within: The Method of Total Interpretation
(trans. B. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), first published in Hebrew in 1962;
and Shimeon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), first
published in Hebrew in 1979. Many of these pioneers of biblical poetics were referred
to as the Tel Aviv school.
131
J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines, The New Literary Criticism, in The New
Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines;
JSOTSup 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 15.
132
Alex Preminger, et al., eds., Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Enl.
ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 568.
introduction 31
133
Not subsumed within the term rhetorical criticism are even newer literary
criticisms such as feminist, reader-response, or deconstructionism.
134
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1981).
Cf. Paul House, The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testa-
ment, in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (ed. Paul
R. House; SBTS 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 5.
135
Alter, A Literary Approach to the Bible, Commentary 60 (1975): 7077.
136
See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative; Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of
Biblical Narrative (BLS 9; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994); Meir Sternberg,
The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art; and Jan P.
Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox 1999).
137
Lyle M. Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 112
(BLS 10; Decatur, Ga.: Almond, 1985), 40.
138
To say that the OT/HB is literature is not to say that it is pure literature. That
is, literature that is purely imaginative and non-utilitarian. Robertsons handbook on
rhetorical criticism (The Old Testament and the Literary Critic [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977], 3) makes the distinction between pure and applied literature, noting that the
OT/HB was originally written as applied literature (i.e., history, liturgy, laws, sermons
etc.) but chooses to treat it as pure literature anyway. However, Robertson presents
a false dichotomy in his distinction. As Berlin (On the Bible as Literature, 2 [1982]:
323327) has argued, literature should not be considered only fictive or folklorish texts.
She suggests that the artful verbal expression and compelling ideas of much of the
OT/HB qualify it as literature, rather than basing our judgment of its literariness on
its function or on how it identifies itself.
139
As Mark Allan Powell (What is Narrative Criticism? [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990],
7) notes, these newer criticisms often incorporate concepts derived from movements
in secular literary criticism that repudiate the significance of historical investigation
32 introduction
The trend in this newer discipline has been to ignore historical questions
in the analysis and instead focus purely on the art of the narrative (how
it tells its story or how it attempts to persuade its reader).140 However, as
Moberly has cautioned, such an approach is not healthy. He writes,
One must not allow a kind of schizophrenia within the biblical exegete
whereby he [sic passim] does his historical-critical research on the one
hand and his literary and theological exegesis on the other, and either
does not see how, or feels himself under no obligation, to bring together
these two approaches to form a coherent understanding of the text. . . .
The responsible interpreter must deal with every aspect and dimension
of the text he is seeking to interpret.141
Some rhetorical critics, however, have noted the ramifications of their
work for source criticism, but not in a constructive way. Three repre-
sentative examples can be seen in the works of Sternberg, Polzin and
Eslinger.142
Sternberg castigates source criticism as over two hundred years of
frenzied digging into the Bibles genesis, so senseless as to elicit either
laughter or tears.143 Sternberg also decries antihistorical approaches as
for the interpretation of texts. E.g., in Robert L. Cohns Berit Olam commentary
(2 Kings [BO; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000]) he makes no correlation between
his rhetorical reading and source criticism. He writes, While I take as a given the
manifestly composite nature of 2 Kings, and have relied on the historical scholarship
that elucidated it, the approach taken here [in his rhetorical-critical commentary] is a
different one (xii). That is, he assumes the validity of source-critical delineations but
chooses to read the text as one of integrity. He clarifies, while historical scholarship has
revealed seams in the narrative that betray antecedent written or oral texts, I present
a continuous reading of the narrative. . . . (xii).
140
As Watson and Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism, 9) observe, Rhetorical critics
normally prefer to leave the task of recovering the history and life of early Israel to
others. E.g., Robertson (The Old Testament and the Literary Critic, 4) explicitly dis-
tances the ramifications of such study on the history of the biblical text, stressing that
a literary approach is arbitrary and a decision to apply it to the OT/HB is only made
because we want to. This is in keeping with its roots in new criticism which sought
to exclude speculation about [a texts] origins and effects . . . . [including] the historical
context in which the text was produced. There was in fact a strong anti-historical bias
in the New Criticism. . . . See Patricia Waugh, ed., Literary Theory and Criticism: An
Oxford Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 172.
141
R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 3234
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 22.
142
E.g., Sternberg, Poetics; Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary
Study of the Deuteronomistic History: Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New
York: Seabury, 1980); and Eslinger, Kingship.
143
Sternberg, Poetics, 13. He continues, Rarely has there been such a futile expense
of spirit in a noble cause; rarely have such grandiose theories of origination been built
and revised and pitted against one another on the evidential equivalent of the head
introduction 33
of a pin; rarely have so many worked so long and so hard with so little to show for
their trouble.
144
Ibid., 10.
145
Sternberg (ibid., 46) argues that monotheism led the Hebrew authors to build
the cognitive antithesis between God and man into the structure of the narrative. By
monotheism (which he basically defines as omniscience and omnipotence) Sternberg
would explain anything problematic about the biblical narrative which otherwise
called for a genetic theory of compilation. Sternberg further asserts, the Bibles poetics
appears to have sprung full-blown (232). This dogmatic explanation for the history
of the biblical text seems outside the realm of historical explanation and is a venture
into theological speculation. At times Sternberg seems almost fundamentalist in his
emphasis on the uniqueness of the HB. E.g., he asserts that the HB is the first and
most ambitious of large-scale coordinators, the Bible is also the greatest (44); this art
of narrative has no parallel in ancient times (31) and avows that Scripture emerges
as the most interesting as well as the greatest work in the narrative tradition (518,
n. 24). Such blatant subjectivity is somewhat unsettling in an academic work.
146
See Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist; idem, Samuel and the Deuteronomist:
A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History: Part Two: 1 Samuel (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1989); and idem, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of
the Deuteronomistic History. Part Three: 2 Samuel (Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 1993).
147
Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 13.
148
Polzin (ibid.) does not elaborate on the issue of the historical process that led to
the formation of the Deuteronomistic History but leaves it as simply an assertion
of his study that source criticism is inadequate for the task.
149
For instance, Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 229, n. 41) allows that source
criticism is realistic in general conception, though in his judgment it is hopelessly
speculative.
34 introduction
150
Polzin spells out the ramifications of his rhetorical reading of the text for pre-
vious source-critical approaches extensively in his footnotes. His critiques are more
often based on larger source-critical issues. He disputes whether large portions of text
come from different sources (e.g., the Ark narrative, Court History etc.) rather than
arguing against particular source-critical delineations in smaller portions of text (such
as within one chapter, etc.).
151
Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 17.
152
E.g., in his Kingship of God in Crisis, he tests his hypothesis that 1 Samuel 112
can be read as a unity, rather than just asserting its unity from the start. He concludes,
it is possible to read 1 Sam 112 as a unitary narrative with a clear, logically progres-
sive plot (425).
153
Ibid., 40.
154
He (ibid., 427) writes, a unitary reading of all the twelve chapters call into
question any readings that suggest that a chapter or group of chapters must be read in
isolation. He labels such source-critical hypotheses (like the Ark narrative) as unnec-
essarily complex, both as hypotheses and as explanations of the data. Richard Nelson
(review of Lyle M. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God, JBL 110 [1991]: 141142)
has characterized Eslingers work as a running battle with historical critics.
155
Eslinger, Kingship, 428.
156
As Albert de Pury and Thomas Rmer observe, For scholars who use synchronic
methods (close reading, narratology, etc.) DH has become a simple abbreviation to
designate the unit Deuteronomy-Kings. See Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH):
History of Research and Debated Issues, in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic
introduction 35
Historiography in Recent Research (ed. Albert de Pury, et al.; JSOTSup 306; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 140.
157
Simon B. Parker (review of Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A
Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, pt 2: I Samuel, LQ 4 [1990]: 113115) has
argued that Polzins work has an undercurrent of polemic against historical stud-
ies which betrays an irrational prejudice (115). Though the present author thinks
irrational goes too far, Polzin does appear to be in polemic against historical studies,
despite lip service to their legitimacy.
158
As Thiselton (New Horizons, 473) has argued, this literary criticism has nothing
to do with icing on the cake or with fluff but is an essential part of critical study
of the text.
159
As V. Philips Long (The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary
and Theological Coherence [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989], 14) asserts, an increased
appreciation of the literary mechanisms of the texthow a story is toldoften becomes
the avenue of greater insight into the theological, religious and even historical signifi-
cance of the text. . . .
160
As Barton (Historical Criticism, 910) has observed, [rhetorical criticisms]
perceptions ought not to be indifferent to historical critics. To the extent that they
show the possibility of reading texts as unitary, they weaken the foundation for a
source criticism based on the detection of inconsistencies. Similarly, Polzin (Samuel
and the Deuteronomist, 228, n. 41) writes, those who still defend specific genetic
theories . . . often fail to realize that the explanatory need and force of such literary-
historical reconstructions have been severely challenged by contemporary discussions
of narrative poetic matters such as repetition, point of view, voice structure, plot, etc.
36 introduction
Similarly, Eslinger (Kingship, 36) suggests that the impression of literary disunity is
not the result of any inherent quality of the narrative, but of the evaluative literary
standards by which historical critics have judged the narrative. It is even conceivable
that the methodological predisposition to fragmentary reading of biblical narratives has
barred the way to any reasonable attempts to read the narrative as a unit.
161
Barton, Historical Criticism, 15.
162
Polzin (1 Samuel: Biblical Studies and the Humanities, RelSRev 15 [1989]:
297306) speculates that biblical scholarship often ignores rhetorical studies under the
assumption that if you dont do literary history you oughtnt to knock it (304).
163
This study will attempt to tread a path between extremes of needlessly finding
sources and quickly covering up any incoherence by special pleading. Sternberg (Poetics,
280) even acknowledges incoherence but formulates a discourse theory to explain
it as purposeful. He writes, But whatever the accidentals of source, they have been
replaced by the laws of discourse. The answer lies in an important principleI call it
the propleptic exposition. . . . According to this convention, retrospective incoherence
signals (guarantees, invites) prospective coherence. In other words, when incoherence
is apparent, Sternberg devises a theory to explain it as purposefully incoherent. Such
special pleading must be avoided.
164
Regarding the writing of a history of Sennacheribs invasion and what was
needed in light of the discussion of the problems, Niels P. Lemche concluded that the
relationship between the A and B1/B2 narratives needs to be taken into account. See
Grabbe, Reflections on the Discussion, 322.
165
As Eslinger (Kingship, 35) observes, source-critics approach the text in search
of the historical realities which are also supposed to be the object of biblical narrative.
Historical truth becomes the standard by which biblical narrative is judged.
introduction 37
III. Overview
166
As Geoffrey R. Elton (The Practice of History [Oxford: Blackwell, 2002], 88)
emphasizes: The historian must know the range and types of sources available to
him . . . . what matters are the sources.
167
Similarly, Gordon F. Davies has argued for the relevance of rhetorical analysis for
historical critical approaches and has proposed that his rhetorical-critical commentary
on Ezra-Nehemiah be a prolegomenon to Ezra-Nehemiah studies. See Ezra and
Nehemiah (BO; ed. David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999), xiii.
168
If the traditional source delineations are accepted, the narrative is understood as
one event repeated three times in different sources. If different source-critical conclu-
sions are reached the narrative would be read quite differently.
38 introduction
A. Change in Style
A key element of the method of a source critic has been detect-
ing changes in literary style. Such changes, especially when sudden,
were thought to point to the hand of more than one author. Though
1
Gray (Kings, 658) has characterized 2 Kgs 18:1316 as a general historical intro-
duction which is of a different style (and genre) from the narratives that follow. It
is on this basis that he makes judgments concerning the historicity of the different
accounts. He writes, in view of the literary character of 18.1719.37, which differs from
the historical summary in 18.1316, we cannot expect the same accurate rendering of
the historical situation. . . . (66364).
40 chapter one
2
The first argument is employed by Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 241; Long,
2 Kings, 200; Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 73; and Montgomery, Book of Kings, 482. The
second argument is advanced by Abraham Kuenen, De profeten en de profetie onder
Isral: Historisch-dogmatische studie (Leiden: P. Engels, 1975), VIII.17; and S. R. Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905),
197. The third argument comes from Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 228.
3
Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 78.
4
Ibid., 70.
5
Gray (Kings, 658), on the other hand, sees a distinct difference between the former
and the latter, remarking that when we reach the latter the account suddenly expands
into a narrative. . . . This seems to indicate that Gray does not view 2 Kgs 18:1316 as
narrative, which is curious.
6
In fact, the style of 2 Kgs 18:1316 seems to match Dtrs style in similar invasion
notices in the DH. For example, 1 Kgs 14:25 notes, In the fifth year of King Rehoboam,
King Shishak of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. The account of the plundering of
a source-critical approach to the problem 41
the temple treasuries is also similar to other accounts in the DH. E.g., in 1 Kgs 15:18
after the foreign king has invaded, the local king plunders the temple and palace to
pay off the former (cf. 2 Kgs 12:1819; 16:5, 79). See also the Mesopotamian parallels
of reported invasions noted by A. K. Grayson in Knigslisten und Chroniken, RlA
6:1056, 111, 113. Even in the same chapter as the passage under discussion, the fall
of Samaria is similarly written as In the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the
seventh year of King Hoshea son of Elah of Israel, King Shalmaneser of Assyria came
up against Samaria and besieged it (2 Kgs 18:9). It appears that these accounts were
all written according to a unified literary pattern. As argued by Gonalves (Lexpdition,
36870).
7
It should be noted that 2 Kgs 18:16 begins with a temporal indicator at that time
which indicates a break. Rdiger Liwak has argued that v. 16 is a later addition. See his
Die Rettung Jerusalems im Jahr 701 vor Christus: zum Verhltnis und Verstndnis
historischer und theologischer Aussagen, ZTK 83 (1986): 137166. However, the style
of the verse does not significantly differ from what precedes. Second Kings 18:1719
continue to narrate the with standard expressions and ambassadors for both Assyria
and Judah are named. However, this does not seem to be indicative of a divergent style
as much as it is setting up the dialogues which follow.
8
See Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1971), 132.
9
E.g., Gray (Kings, 665) concludes that the Rabshakehs speech is the composition
of the Deuteronomistic compiler. . . .
42 chapter one
10
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 228) call 2 Kgs 18:13b16 excerpts from a Judahite
chronicle (vv. 13b15) and a Temple chronicle (v. 16). So Gray, Kings, 65960; Honor,
Sennacheribs Invasion, 37; Long, 2 Kings, 200; and Montgomery, Book of Kings, 482.
11
The fourteenth year is often seen as a sign of its archival origins. E.g., Gray, Kings,
65960; Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 37; Long, 2 Kings, 200; and Montgomery, Book
of Kings, 482. Conversely, Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 228, 254) have argued that the
date formula in 2 Kgs 18:13 is not original to the archival source represented in vv.
1416 but belongs at the head of the pericope beginning in 2 Kgs 20:1. They separate
the date in v. 13a from the note that the foreign king came up against Judah in v. 13b
which they include original as to the archival source. They suggest that the archival
source actually began not with a date but with the temporal indicator in those days
which now resides in 2 Kgs 20:1. However, this seems largely dependent on their belief
that these verses come from archival records. Their opinion here may be influenced by
Montgomerys (Archival Data in the Book of Kings, JBL 53 [1934]: 4652) suggestion
(though they do not acknowledge his arguments here) that at that time was an archival
expression of scribes. Of even more interest is the way Cogan handles the analogous
date in 1 Kgs 14:25 which notes Shishaks invasion. Here Cogan (I Kings, 387) notes that
such historical notices (of a foreign invasion) usually are introduced by at that time or
in his days in biblical narrative. He therefore suggests that this explicit date of 1 Kgs
14:25 indicates that it is derived from an extract from a royal or Temple chronicle.
These conclusions seem contradictory. In 2 Kgs 18:13 he concludes that it originally
must have began in those days since it is drawn from an archival source, but in 1 Kgs
14:25 he notes that the explicit date indicates it is derived from an archival source,
unlike normal biblical narrative which is typified by an initial in those days. Clearly
there is no objective criteria being used to determine what comes from an archival
source and what does not. It seems that the reason Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 228)
decide against the date is simply due to the difficulties surrounding its accuracy. Still
they believe the rest of the putative Account A to be accurate, so they are forced to
excise the date formula from the brief account. For that reason, one should not allow
suspicions of archival origins to pre-empt literary analysis in assessing the style in our
narrative. Otherwise the critic becomes guilty of purely circular argumentation.
12
E.g., 1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 18:9. Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 70) has commented these
verses are narrative prose, typical of the author. . . . Cf. Gonalves, Lexpdition,
36870.
13
Simon B. Parker (Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal
Inscriptions? VT 50 [2000]: 357378) has examined the issue of whether the biblical
a source-critical approach to the problem 43
the archival document that is thought to lie behind this account has
been likened to the Babylonian Chronicle.14 Such a hypothetical source
has been described by scholars as giving short statements about key
events . . . minimal in most cases.15 However, when the Babylonian
Chronicle is examined, first person speech of the monarch is not found.
In fact, although it is absent in the Babylonian Chronicle, this type of
narration is common in biblical narrative. The example of 1 Sam 11:1 is
instructive in this regard. It begins very similarly with a terse description
of the invasion of a foreign power (And Nahash the Ammonite came
up, and encamped against Jabesh-Gilead) and then is followed by an
account of direct speech from those under attack (and all the men of
Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make with us a covenant, and we will serve
you ).16 Interestingly, the unity of 1 Sam 11:13 is not questioned and
there are no suspicions of the use of an archival source for this verse.
Therefore, the supposition that 2 Kgs 18:1316 derives from an archival
source should not be used as a basis for separating sources within the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.
2. The spelling of Hezekiahs name is varied throughout the Hezekiah
macro-narrative.17 Some have found these dissimilar forms as pointing
to the authors use of different sources.18 However, in 2 Kings 18 we
also have variant spellings for two of Hezekiahs ambassadors, which
have surprisingly received little comment compared with the issue
of the spelling of Hezekiahs name. In 2 Kgs 18:18 and 2 Kgs 18:26,
Hilkiah, the name of Eliakims father, is spelled and Shebna is
spelled . However, at the end of the chapter in 2 Kgs 18:37 Hilkiah
is spelled and Shebna is spelled .19 Yet these orthographic
differences have never suggested to commentators the use of different
20
In Isaiah 22 Shebna and Hilkiah are mentioned but are spelled and
respectively. These spellings do not line up with either pair of spellings in 2 Kings
1819 but are a combination of both.
21
As Honor (Sennacheribs Invasion, 38) noted, It will have to be assumed that the
spelling is interchangeable, and that it is purely an accidental circumstance that it is
spelled one way in vv. 1416, and another in II K xviii 17xx 19. Of course, Honor
is also using the ben H ayim text, which has different spellings for Hezekiah in v. 13
and vv. 1416. He only concedes this conclusion if v. 13 is thought to be derived from
the annals along with vv. 1416. He, however, does not argue this way, but instead
separates v. 13 from vv. 1416 due to the problem with dating Sennacheribs invasion
to Hezekiahs 14th year.
22
In an effort to corroborate their separation of 2 Kgs 18:13a and 2 Kgs 18:13b16,
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 228) point out the designation of Hezekiah as King
Hezekiah in both the former and Hezekiah, King of Judah in the latter. They claim
that the former designation is used throughout the prophetic narratives but the
archival source employs the latter. However, a thorough examination of the evidence
reveals that these designations do not back up their assertions. E.g., in 2 Kgs 18:13b16
Hezekiah is referred to as either, Hezekiah, King of Judah or simply Hezekiah.
(2x in 2 Kgs 18:14; 1x in 2 Kgs 18:16) or simply Hezekiah (1x in 2 Kgs 18:15, 1x in
2 Kgs 18:16). As well, the designation Hezekiah, King of Judah is not limited to 2 Kgs
18:13b16 as we also find the designation Hezekiah, king of Judah in 2 Kgs 19:10
(which is part of what they refer to as the prophetic narratives).
23
18:1, 10, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37; 19:3, 9, 14(2x), 15, 20; 20:1, 3, 5, 8, 10,
12(2x), 13(2x), 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21.
a source-critical approach to the problem 45
Table 1
B. Divergent Perspectives
Many scholars have perceived divergent perspectives within the differ-
ent putative accounts posited by the Stade-Childs hypothesis. More
specifically it has been suggested that: 1. Account B has no knowledge
of Account A; 2. the second prophecy of Isaiah does not correspond
with the first, or refer back to it; and 3. the second utterance of Heze-
kiah in the temple evinces a divergent (and more advanced) theological
perspective from the first utterance, suggesting they stem from discrete
sources.25
24
Second Kings 20 also contains both King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:14) and simply
Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22).
25
The first argument is found in Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 566; Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 73; and Montgomery,
Book of Kings, 515. The second is advanced by Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 45, 74.
The third is found in Gray, Kings, 666; and Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 243.
46 chapter one
26
Habel, Literary Criticism, 18.
27
E.g., Long (2 Kings, 200) asserts that B is without a single allusion to the events
recounted in vv. 1316. So Jones, Kings, 566; Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 73; and Mont-
gomery, Book of Kings, 515.
28
William G. Dever suggests that Account B is ignorant of the fall of Lachish. See
his Archaeology, Material Culture and the Early Monarchical Period in Israel, in The
Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israels Past (ed. Diana Edelman; JSOTSup 127;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 107. Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 244) suggest that the
mention of Lachish in Account B is redactional.
29
It is possible that Hezekiahs prominent role in the rebellion may have raised
Sennacheribs ire to the point that tribute was not enough. Ben Zvi (Malleability and
its Limits, 82) has suggested that the narrative purposefully makes Sennacherib attack
despite tribute paid in order to vilify him.
30
E.g., it appears that Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 244) have forgotten about the
reference to Lachish in 2 Kgs 18:17 (the beginning of the putative Account B).
a source-critical approach to the problem 47
31
If 2 Kgs 18:17 truly begins a new source (the putative B), it must be admitted it
is fragmentary. Evidently, this source assumes that Sennacherib has invaded Judah. It
does not mention it explicitly at the beginning but begins with the (unnamed) king of
Assyria sending messengers to Jerusalem.
32
All previous accounts in 2 Kings referring to Assyrian monarchs mention their
name. Cf. 2 Kgs 15:19, 29; 16:7, 10; 17:3; 18:9.
33
Gray (Kings, 667) suggests that vv. 2931 relate to the historical events of 701 b.c.e.
34
Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 45.
48 chapter one
35
Cf. Isa 7:79 and Isa 7:1417 which refer to the same historical situation but
the latter does not refer to the former. Cf. also 1 Kgs 20:1315 & 28. For more on
1 Kings 20 see below.
36
Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 74.
37
According to classic source-critical principles, the presence of distinct theologies
would indicate more than one literary hand. See Habel, Literary Criticism, 3.
38
Gray (Kings, 666667) therefore concludes that the theology of the putative
Account B2 is much more mature than that of Account B1.
39
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 243.
a source-critical approach to the problem 49
( the living God) found.40 This second use of the phrase clearly ties
the second response of Hezekiah to the first.
The theological ideas evinced in Hezekiahs prayer in 2 Kgs 19:18
appear to reflect later ideas of monotheism. Indeed, in this verse Heze-
kiah declares that the gods of the peoples conquered by Assyria were
nothing but a human creation, asserting that the gods of the nations
are not gods. Therefore, it has been argued that the B2 portion of the
narrative must come from a separate and much later source than the
A and B1 portions. Underlying this argument is the assumption that
the bulk of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative predates Dtr and that
Dtr has not extensively reworked the narrative, but instead just allowed
his sources to speak for themselves. It is clear that the book of Deu-
teronomy has influenced the composition of this prayer. In fact there
are direct verbal parallels with Deut 4:28. The similarities can be seen
in the table below:
Table 2
Deuteronomy 4:28 2 Kings 19:18
There you will serve other gods the and have hurled their gods into the
work of human handswood and fire, though they were no gods but
stone( ) that the work of human handswood and
neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor stone( ) and
smell. so they were destroyed.
40
Elsewhere variations on this name are found such as living God (e.g.,
Deut 5:26) or living God (e.g., Ps 42:3) but never in the same form as here.
41
The Deuteronomistic introduction (= Deut 1:64:40) is thought to have been
appended to the original Deuteronomic work and is attributable to Dtr. See Moshe
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 10. Noth (ber-
lieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 1218), of course, argued that Dtr incorporated Deut
4:4430:20 as one unit into his work.
42
Cf. Jer 10:3 and Deut 27:15 for an analogous expression.
43
As Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 70) writes, the style of the account [A] is that of the
Deuteronomistic historian who has obviously used older sources, but who has expressed
himself in his own style.
50 chapter one
C. Differences in Characterization
Variations in the characterizations of both Hezekiah and Isaiah in the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative have often been seen to support the
Stade-Childs hypothesis. 1. The depiction of Hezekiah as a temple looter
who capitulates to Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 18:1316 (Account A) seems at
odds with the pious picture of Hezekiah as the king who trusts in Yah-
weh found in 2 Kgs 18:1719:37 (Account B). This apparent divergence
in characterization of the Judean monarch has been seen to support the
separation of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative into Accounts A and
B.47 2. In addition, the characterizations of both Hezekiah and Isaiah
have been viewed as divergent in different sections of the putative B
44
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 243) suggest that only B2 bears the imprint of the
Deuteronomic school.
45
Cogan and Tadmor note (ibid., 220) this possibility: Unlike the later reform of
Josiah, Hezekiahs acts are not said to have stemmed from a written book of Torah. . . .
But this lack is not a reason to deny a connection between Hezekiah and the Deu-
teronomic school. They make reference to the theory of how northern ideas reached
Judah can be suggested: the refugees from Ephraim after 722 who resettled in Judah
brought the proto-Deuteronomy to its new home.
46
As Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 111, 5053) states: As the book of Deuteronomy
was discovered in the days of Josiah (622 b.c.e.) we must suppose that the main lay-
out of the book existed long before that timethat is, at the time of Hezekiah (51).
Of course, the main point of connection between Hezekiah and Deuteronomy is the
centralization of the cult that, out of biblical legal codes, was first stipulated in Deu-
teronomy (the later legal corpus assuming it). Hezekiahs reforms also comply with
the Deuteronomic proscribing of pillars in Yahweh worship (Deut 16:22). As well, the
Passover of Hezekiah presented in the Chroniclers history also corresponds to that
prescribed in Deut 16:18.
47
Gray, Kings, 659, 666; and Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 100. This led Montgomery (Book
of Kings, 515) to characterize Account A as less moralizing than the B accounts.
a source-critical approach to the problem 51
48
See Gray, Kings, 665. So Jones, Kings, 569.
49
Gray (Kings, 665) has made much of the differences here suggesting that in B1
Isaiah and Hezekiahs role has historical verisimilitude. This is particularly interesting,
since Gray disparages the historicity of the entire B source (661).
50
Ibid., 665; and Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 243.
51
E.g., Abraham asserting that his wife was his sister (Gen 12:13), a man of God
lying to another prophet (1 Kgs 13:18); Davids sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah
(2 Sam 11); Solomons foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:14); and Josiahs decision to fight Neco
(2 Kgs 23:29, esp. 2 Chr 35:2022).
52
So Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 240; and Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte, 134.
53
Long (2 Kings, 201) notes that in both putative accounts Hezekiah himself is a
kind of mediating figure.
52 chapter one
54
Cf. 2 Sam 7:27 (David); 1 Kgs 8:2829 (Solomon). In the DH other characters
also pray to the deity without intermediary. Cf. 1 Sam 1:10 (Hannah); 1 Kgs 8:338
(all humankind ;) 1 Kgs 8:41 (a foreigner). Also, Klaas A. D. Smelik has argued
that in this narrative Hezekiah no longer needs the prophets intercession now that
he has been reassured by Isaiah that Sennacherib will withdraw. See Distortion of
Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah 36 and 37, in Crises and Perspectives:
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology,
and Intertestamental Literature: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament
Conference, Held at Cambridge, U.K., 1985 (ed. A. S. van der Woude; OtSt 24; Leiden:
Brill, 1986), 82.
55
Gray (Kings, 666) points out the differences between Isaiahs role in B1 and
B2 noting that the prophet is here [in B2] introduced not as bidden by the king to
intercede, but as sending, evidently unprompted, an oracle assuring the king that his
prayer in extremity has been heard.
56
Outside of the DH, an analogous portrayal of this same prophet is in Isaiah 7
where Isaiah is sent to Ahaz to deliver oracles, unsolicited. This passage in Isaiah is
often thought to be from the prophets Denkschrift and date to the 8th century. See
Karl Budde, Jesajas Erleben: Eine gemeinverstndliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des
Propheten, (Kap. 6, 19, 6) (Gotha: L. Klotz, 1928); Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja
(HAT 3; ed. Wilhelm Nowack; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897); and R. E.
Clements, The Prophet as an Author: The Case of the Isaiah Memoir, in Writings and
Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael
H. Floyd; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 89101. A close relationship of
this passage to Isaiah 3639 has been highlighted in many studies. See Roy F. Melugin,
The Formation of Isaiah 4055 (BZAW 141; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976); Peter R. Ackroyd,
Isaiah 3639: Structure and Function, in Von Kanaan bis Kerala (ed. W. C. Delsman
and J. P. M. van der Ploeg; AOAT 211; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1982), 321; idem,
The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, in In the Shelter of
Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlstrm
(ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984),
247259; Rolf Rendtorff, Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja, VT 34 (1984): 295320;
R. E. Clements, Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First
Isaiahs Themes, JSOT 31 (1985): 95113; idem, Prophet as Author, 91; and Joseph
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 139 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 291.
57
It would seem that prophetic oracles are more often unsolicited in Dtr prophetic
portrayals (e.g., Judg 6:8; 1 Sam 22:5; 2 Sam 7:5; 2 Sam 24:11; 1 Kgs 11:29; 13:20 14:7
[where a different type of oracle was being solicited]; 20:13, 22; 42; etc.). Cp. with
a source-critical approach to the problem 53
explicitly solicited oracles (e.g., 1 Sam 9:69; 1 Kgs 14:7; 22:7; 2 Kgs 3:11; etc.). Even
in the Hezekiah macro-narrative we have both solicited and unsolicited oracles in
2 Kings 20. Second Kings 20:56 is a welcome oracle in response to Hezekiahs prayer.
Second Kings 20:8 explicitly solicits a response from Isaiah which he gives in 2 Kgs
20:9. Unsolicited oracles are also given in 2 Kgs 20:1 and 2 Kings 1618.
58
Interestingly, Gray (Kings, 665) notes that in B1 it is not stated . . . that an oracle
was sought. Yet he contrasts this with Isaiahs evidently unprompted sending of
an oracle in B2. Long (2 Kings, 201) notes that in both putative accounts Hezekiah
is a kind of mediating figure: each time he responds to the rhetorical assaults of Sen-
nacherib, Yahweh responds through prophecy. . . .
59
Mark J. Boda (From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical
Window of Jer 14,115,4, ZAW 113 [2001]: 186197) has drawn attention to Jer-
emiah 42 where the prophet is asked to pray (Jer 42:2) and what is meant by pray
is explicitly communicated: Pray that Yahweh your God will tell us where we should
go and what we should do (Jer 42:3). Boda suggests that this indicates that at other
places where the prophet is requested to pray what is really meant is that the prophet
bring a message from Yahweh. Boda compares this to Jeremiah 37 where Zedekiah
requests that Jeremiah pray (Jer 37:3) and subsequently Jeremiah receives a prophetic
word (Jer 37:6). Therefore, though no explicit request for an oracle was made, the
prayer requested was a prayer for a message from Yahweh. Of course, there are
times where a prophet is requested to pray, with no following oracular response (e.g.,
1 Sam 7:8; 12:19).
54 chapter one
D. Interruptions
The prophecy of Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:7 predicts that Sennacherib will be
killed in his homeland after hearing a rumour. However, the prophecy
is disconnected from the fulfilment of the prophecy by the intruding
verses of the B2 account. Therefore, if the B2 account is excised from
the narrative, it reads smoothly with the fulfilment occurring after the
prophecy and in a predictable, timely manner. Underlying this argument
is the assumption that the fulfilment of the prophecy should follow
quite immediately after it is spoken. If this assumption is correct, then
the B2 account would appear to be a needless interruption.
However, prophecies in the DH do not always conform to such expec-
tations. Long ago, von Rad articulated the prevalence of the prophecy /
fulfilment schema operative in the DH.61 By and large the pattern of
promise-fulfilment was symmetric in principle; that is, the fulfilment
necessarily followed the promise in a relative pattern of imminent
execution. However, Weippert has drawn attention to the fact that in
practice this principle was applied asymmetrically.62 Since predicting
60
To support the Stade-Childs source-critical distinctions, Jones (Kings, 569)
emphasizes the differences between B1 and B2 by claiming Isaiah turns from being a
mouthpiece of Gods message of reassurance to appear as a prophet speaking a series of
oracles. However, how one distinguishes being Gods mouthpiece from delivering
Gods oracles is difficult to see. The oracles in response to the second Assyrian threat
are lengthier than the brief initial oracle, perhaps owing to the more blasphemous
nature of the second threat (claiming that Yahweh himself was deceptive).
61
As Gerhard von Rad (Old Testament Theology I: The Theology of Israels Historical
Traditions [trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 340) writes, It
can actually be said that the Deuteronomist gave the historical course of events which
he describes its inner rhythm and its theological proof precisely by means of a whole
structure of constantly promulgated prophetic predictions and their corresponding
fulfillments, of which exact note is generally made.
62
Weippert, Geschichten und Geschichte, 120. Of course, von Rad (Studies in
Deuteronomy, 78) noticed this some time ago when he noted that the prophecy /
fulfilment schema is used freely and with elasticity in the DH.
a source-critical approach to the problem 55
the outcome of a story before its narration can make the story boring,
the prophetic word often was fulfilled in surprising ways.63 The Heze-
kiah-Sennacherib narrative presents just such a case. The symmetrical
principle of the promise-fulfilment schema would have led the reader
to anticipate the fulfilment of the promise without delay. Ironically, this
is exactly what modern source-critical readers expect. Thus the scholar
has fallen into the trap set by the narrator.64 We must be careful not
to demand the text read in the way we think it should. Such demands
reveal a lack of sophistication in evaluating the narrative and essentially
display ignorance of how delayed and unexpected means of fulfilment
is a central characteristic of the DH.65
Most scholars have viewed the prophecy of Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:2131
as an interpolation into the present text.66 Its length is out of proportion
compared with the earlier prophecy of Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:67. Also it is
obviously of distinct style from the narrative that surrounds it due to
the former being poetry and the latter prose. However, there is much in
this poetic section that has ties to the narrative that precedes it. Second
Kings 19:22, 23 both have a verbal connection with what precedes, as
the prophecy notes that Assyria / Sennacherib has mocked ( )God.
This is the same verb used by Hezekiah to describe Assyrias words in
2 Kgs 19:4 and 16. In fact, these are the only occurrences of this verb
in the entire book of Kings. It seems unlikely that the prophecy would
employ the same verbs fortuitously. This connection requires a better
explanation.
Further connections are evident in the use of the verb revile ()
in 2 Kgs 19:22 (the putative Account B1) which has explicit connec-
tions to 2 Kgs 19:6 (the putative Account B2) where Isaiah uses the
same verb to describe Assyrias words. In fact, these are the only two
63
Weippert, Geschichten und Geschichte, 119120.
64
As Smelik (Distortion, 77) has argued regarding Stade. He writes, By suppos-
ing that in the first account the news of Tirhakahs arrival ended Sennacheribs attack,
Stade actually walked into the trap the author has set for the reader.
65
As argued by Weippert (Geschichten und Geschichte, 116131). This aspect
of the DH is also highlighted by Bodner (David Observed: A King in the Eyes of His
Court [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005], 2536) as he underscores how the death of
Ahimelech subtly fulfils the prophecy of doom for the house of Eli uttered in 1 Sam
2:2736.
66
So Gray, Kings, 688694; Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 103; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings,
236; John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (CBSC 20; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1922), 288; Albert anda, Die Bcher der Knige (EHAT I; Munster:
Aschendorffscher, 1912); and Clements, Deliverance of Jerusalem, 57.
56 chapter one
occurrences of this verb in the entire DH.67 The use of this rare word in
both instances militates against the hypothesis that this oracle derives
from an independent discrete source that was incorporated en bloc.68
There is also a connection with the mention of Assyrias messengers
( )in 2 Kgs 19:23. Messengers ( )are mentioned by the
narrator in 2 Kgs 19:9 and 2 Kgs 19:14 in reference to the Assyrian
emissaries. Again there is a clear link with the preceding narrative. In
fact, in 2 Kgs 19:23 Sennacherib is said to have mocked ( )the
living God through the agency of his messengers (). These mes-
sengers are clearly those sent by Assyria in the narrative portion which
precedes the prophecy.
The reference in 2 Kgs 19:23 to Assyrias reliance on their many
chariots seems to refer to the Rabshakehs boastings in regards to chari-
ots in 2 Kgs 18:23 and 24.69 The reference to Assyrias boast at having
scaled the heights of Lebanon in 2 Kgs 19:23 may be a reference to
Rabshakehs boast at having conquered Samaria in 2 Kgs 18:34.70 If the
heights of Lebanon do have cosmological overtones of the dwelling
of the gods, this could also fit with the Rabshakeh mocking the deities
that could not prevent his victory over Samaria.71
These clear connections between the poetic and narrative sections
suggest a relationship of literary dependence between the two. Childs
argued that while the two writers shared oral tradition they did not
draw on each other (that is, their texts) as a source.72 Kaiser saw this
problem and suggested there was a Grunderzhlung that B2 reworked.73
While this is possible, there is no evidence of such a Grunderzhlung
(unless circular argumentation like Kaisers counts as evidence).
67
The word actually occurs only 7 times in the Old Testament. It occurs twice in
our passage, twice in the parallel in Isaiah (Isa 37:6, 23) and in Num 15:30, Ezek 20:27,
and Ps 44:17.
68
Long (2 Kings, 201) notes that these key words cross the lines of B1 and B2,
suggesting coherent intentionality in the final text, however, one might think of its
origins.
69
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 231) note that this boast of chariots boasts A very
large number!
70
Cf. Zech 10:10. As Robert H. Smith (Lebanon, ABD 4:26970) has noted, at
times Lebanon was used almost as a poetic surrogate for Israel.
71
Smith (ibid., 269) points out the possibility that cosmological overtones are present
in the heights of Lebanon.
72
Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 98, 103.
73
Otto Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja; Kapitel 1339 (ATD 18; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1973), 304. In his words die Aufzeichnung der zweiten Geschichte mit
der Bearbeitung der ersten zusammenfiel.
a source-critical approach to the problem 57
74
is the Egyptian name for the Nile and is the poetic form of the name
Egypt. See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 237.
75
Ibid., 243.
76
See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:302303).
77
Note the interesting parallel phrase in Zech 10:11 where the return from exile
of the northern tribes is referred to as a drying up of the Nile. Mark J. Boda (Haggai,
Zechariah [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004], 446) suggests this imagery may
denote the destruction of Egypts prosperity as a result of the Exodus.
78
E.g., in Ezra 9:14 these same words ( remnant and survivor) are
placed in parallel in reference to escape from the judgments of God (in exile).
79
E.g., Clements (Deliverance of Jerusalem, 57) asserts that 2 Kgs 19:3031 are
derived from the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the name Shear-Jashub. However,
Clements does not argue this point but merely states it summarily. It is unclear how such
a connection is made when there is not verbal agreement between the two prophecies.
In Isaiah the remnant is said to return but here it is said to go out . It is also
unclear what he means by the prophecy of Shear-Jashub in reference to Isaiah 7 when
there is no prophecy attached to the name (he references Isa 10:2023 as a secondary
development of 2 Kgs 19:31). It is equally unclear how the derivation of the 2 Kings
oracle from the book of Isaiah can be determined since they use different words for
remnant ( in 2 Kgs 19:31 and in Isa 10:2023 and Isa 7:3), yet Clements
views the Kings oracle as reliant on the prophecy of Shear-Jashub () .
58 chapter one
inviting Israelites from the north to partake in his Passover.80 Here the
connotation is not those who returned from exile, but those who have
survived Assyrian oppression. The vocabulary may be suggestive of
the exile, due to its use in other narratives, but it does not necessarily
have such connotations.81
The final part of this poetic section (2 Kgs 19:3334) clearly has ties
with the narrative that follows, as it depicts Yahwehs promise to protect
Jerusalem and predicts Sennacheribs forced return to his land. As a
result, scholars have not often considered these verses as originating
from a discrete source. The fulfilment to these prophecies is narrated
immediately following the oracles.
In sum, despite the poetic form of 2 Kgs 19:2134 which is clearly
distinct from the narrative that precedes it, there are obvious ties with
the latter. These ties make it difficult to see the poetic passages as sepa-
rate, independent, discrete sources secondarily attached to pre-existing
narratives. This evidence suggests either a relationship of literary depen-
dence between the putative two accounts or the same literary hand as
the author of both. Alternatively, it could be argued that this points to
redactional activity which tied in the poetic prophecies to the narrative.82
However, such a conclusion appears quite circular in nature, unless
other evidence for the independence of these sections is offered.
80
Sara Japhet (I & II Chronicles [OTL; Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1993],
943) argues that this phrase the remnant of you who have escaped explicitly reflects
2 Kgs 19:30.
81
Gray (Kings, 692) has suggested that this part of the oracle may be Isaianic as
it suggests a three year interval between sign and fulfilment, which is analogous to
two other Isaianic oracles in the book of Isaiah (Isa 7:1416; 20:23. However, most
commentators have seen 2 Kgs 19:3234 as original to the narrative as Isaiahs reply
to Hezekiahs prayer. They instead bracket off 2 Kgs 19:2131 as secondary. So Stade
(Miscellen, 178) and Clements (Deliverance of Jerusalem, 57). A similar thesis may
be behind the NRSV version which puts 2 Kgs 2129 in poetic lines, but then returns
to normal narrative paragraphing for vv. 3037.
82
However, Bartons (Reading the Old Testament, 5658) caution about the disap-
pearing redactor should be taken seriously here.
83
Habel, Literary Criticism, 6.
a source-critical approach to the problem 59
tive are some of the surest ways of discerning the source history of a
pericope. Such an incongruity has been suggested in the connection
between the putative accounts A and B1. Many have argued that it is
illogical that Assyrian emissaries be sent to Jerusalem after Hezekiah
had already capitulated.84 An appeal to discrete sources is helpful in
explaining this apparent logical inconsistency. Without a better expla-
nation for the visit of the Assyrian emissaries, the positing of discrete
sources seems appropriate.85
Some have detected discrete themes in the different putative sources
that make up the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, particularly in ref-
erence to the putative B1 and B2 accounts. For example, Cogan and
Tadmor suggest that B1 is distinct from B2 as the central motif in B2
is the scorning of yhwh by the Assyrian monarch; consequently, in
Hezekiahs prayer the defence of yhwhs fame stands in bold relief.86
However, the recognition of distinct themes is somewhat subjective.
This theme of the scorning of Yahweh by the Assyrians is also present
84
As Lemche (Problems of Reconstructing, 151) writes, The Rabshakeh incident
is clearly superfluous as Hezekiah had already surrendered and paid his tribute to the
king of Assyria, before Rabshakeh moved to Jerusalem in order to deliver his speech.
There was no reason for the Assyrian king not to return home since he had already
achieved his goal, to stop the rebellion in southwestern Palestine. However, various
theories have been put forward to explain the logical connection between the payment
of tribute and the further demand for surrender. E.g., Harold Henry Rowley (Heze-
kiahs Reform and Rebellion, BJRL 44 [1962]: 395431) suggested that B2 refers to a
second stage where Sennacherib regretted being lenient to Jerusalem and decided to
take Jerusalem. Long ago Simon Patrick (A Commentary Upon the Historical Books of
the Old Testament [2 vols.; London: A. Millar, 1765], 2:504) noted various theories:
Some of the Jews think, that Senacherib [sic] having received the Tribute from Hezekiah
went to his own Land: But because Hezekiah did not continue to send it every Year,
after some time returned to Judea again. Patrick himself suggested that Sennacherib
campaigned against Egypt and came back after failing to take it and decided to break
faith with Hezekiah and attack Jerusalem. Alternatively, Ben Zvi (Malleability and its
Limits, 8182) has offered a literary explanation asserting that, after accepting tribute
contrary to all expectations this extreme anti-hero decides to continue the campaign,
to exile the people and destroy Jerusalem. No historical explanation is needed, but
only an appeal to the freedom of the author. As Ben Zvi writes, the text creates a
literary (and ideological) scenario that leads to clear anticipations and then frustrates
them to negatively characterize Sennacherib (82).
85
However, not all adherents to the Stade-Childs hypothesis see this as inconsistent.
Gray (Kings, 662) has actually proposed that the delegation after Hezekiahs surren-
der is the historical nucleus in Account B. He writes, the occasion of the Assyrian
delegation to Jerusalem was to warn Hezekiah, who had probably submitted, not to
be encouraged by the dmarche of Egypt. . . . Though later he contradicts himself
asserting that the submission at Lachish in 18.14 may have been subsequent to the
delegation. . . . (663).
86
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 243.
60 chapter one
in B1. This can objectively be established by noting the use of the same
rare words, revile ( )and mock (), to refer to the scorning of
Yahweh in both putative sources, B1 and B2. Since these rare verbs are
only used in these pericopes, it seems illogical, on the basis of state-
ments employing these verbs, to detect a new motif in the putative B2
source since it is also found in the putative B1 source.
Some have seen another inconsistency between the putative B1 and
B2 accounts in the necessity of a prophetic oracle by Isaiah in the lat-
ter account. Honor suggested that Hezekiah should not have needed
a second prophetic oracle by the prophet Isaiah to encourage him. He
writes, Why, under such circumstances, should Sennacheribs letter
have again frightened Hezekiah and again left him panic stricken?87
In other words, if the B account is a unity and the second prophecy
by Isaiah is not a parallel account but truly a second oracle, Hezekiah
should have been sufficiently encouraged by the initial prophecy,
making another prophecy unnecessary. This inconsistency could sup-
port the division of the putative Account B into two discrete sources.
If Hezekiahs two occasions of trepidation and the two oracles of
Isaiah are really doublets, then there is no inconsistency in Hezekiahs
characterization.
F. Isolation of Sources
One of the mainstays of source-critical work has been the isolation of
distinct literary units within a pericope.88 If such isolation was possible,
the source-critical conclusions proposed were thought to be strength-
ened immeasurably. One of the reasons for the broad consensus con-
cerning the Stade-Childs delineation of sources has been the purported
success in isolating complete sources. Building on the work of Stade,
Childs contributed to the source-critical question by distinguishing
the original ending of B1 from that of B2. Childs detected a problem
with Stades analysis in the fact that both B1 and B2 needed to share
the ending in 2 Kgs 19:36.89 With Stade and Honor, Childs saw the
conclusion of B1 in the hearing of a rumour (19:9a) and the return
of Sennacherib to Nineveh (19:3637), but he determined that B2 did
87
Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 45.
88
Habel, Literary Criticism, 2.
89
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 75) asserts: The final problem arises from the fact that
the information in v. 36 seems to be required by both sources [B1 and B2]. Stade
(Miscellen, 175) had explained that one conclusion had been lost because the editor
did not want to maintain two different conclusions.
a source-critical approach to the problem 61
not share this same conclusion (vv. 3637 with Sennacheribs return to
Nineveh, albeit due to the destruction of his army by the angel [v. 35]).
In order to argue for two completely independent and continuous
sources, Childs argued that B2 actually ended with Sennacheribs
destruction, along with his army, thereby freeing Account B2 of the
need to share the ending with B1.90 The theory is therefore neat and
attractive with two complete strands having been isolated (B1 = 2 Kgs
18:1719:9a, 3637; B2 = 2 Kgs 19:9b35).91
However, Childs solution which posits the end of B2 at 2 Kgs 19:35
(which he interprets as narrating the death of not only the Assyrian
army but Sennacherib as well) would contradict the content of B2 itself.
Second Kings 19:28 and 33 both declare that Yahweh will cause him to
return the way he came. This implies that Sennacherib will return
to Ninevehwhich we see in 2 Kgs 19:36. However, Childs solution
ends B2 at 2 Kgs 19:35. Childs deals with this problem by suggesting
that 2 Kgs 19:33 is a secondary addition and that 2 Kgs 19:2128 is
also an expansion to the original. However, rewriting of the narrative
in this way is difficult to justify. The impetus for concluding that the
reference to Sennacheribs return was secondary was the perceived need
for the B2 account to have its own separate ending. The argumentation
appears arbitrary and the rationale circular.
Regarding the complete isolation of these putative sources, what is
often overlooked is the fact that the putative account B2 is actually
incomplete. Smelik has pointed out that ( and he returned
and he sent or he sent again, 2 Kgs 19:9b) is an odd incipit for this sup-
posedly independent account.92 First, the subject is not explicit, which
is problematic if this opens a self-sufficient piece of literature. Secondly,
this presupposes earlier action (never narrated in this account) by this
subject as he is returning or sending messengers again. Clearly, if
source B is the result of the combination of two narratives, the begin-
ning of B2 has been deleted.
90
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 76) accomplishes this by appealing to Duhms (Das Buch
Jesaja) suggestion that 19:33 (which mentions Sennacheribs withdrawal) is a late
addition to B2 and was used to connect B2 and B1. Thus Childs can conclude that B2
originally ended with Sennacheribs death and not his withdrawal.
91
There is, of course, debate over where the two are connected, but these conclu-
sions are generally accepted. E.g., Stade (Miscellen, 173) suggested that 2 Kgs 19:9a
is where B1 is interrupted. Others have argued that B1 ends at 2 Kgs 19:7 (e.g., Gray,
Kings, 662).
92
Smelik, Distortion, 7093, here, 75.
62 chapter one
Table 3
93
E.g., 1 Kgs 14:2526 (Shishak); 1 Kgs 15:1621 (Baasha); 2 Kgs 12:1819 (Hazael);
2 Kgs 16:5, 79 (Pekah & Rezin); 2 Kgs 14:14 (Jehoash). The notable exception is 2 Kgs
24:13 and 25:1317 with Jerusalems defeat by Nebuchadnezzar.
94
Long ago J. Lewy (Sanherib und Hizkia, OLZ 31 [1928]: 156157) suggested
that the ending to Account A was to be found in 2 Kgs 19:36.
95
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 241) alleviate this problem by appealing to Lewys
idea that 2 Kgs 19:36 forms the original ending to Account A. However, they contradict
themselves by then claiming the same ending (2 Kgs 19:36) as original to B1 (242).
They do not acknowledge the contradictory claims or provide a theory to explain this
sharing of endings between the two sources.
a source-critical approach to the problem 63
96
Habel, Literary Criticism, 6.
97
Long (2 Kings, 200) notes that the consensus regarding the putative sources rests
primarily on duplications observed within the narrative. Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 73)
also notes this as paramount.
98
Of course, some have offered other explanations. E.g., G. Galil (Sennacherib
Versus Hezekiah: A New Look at the Assyrian Campaign to the West, Zion 53 [1988]:
112) suggests that Account A summarizes the whole campaign. He suggests that the
editor put the tribute payment first and the divine deliverance second so that the reader
is clear that God saved Jerusalem and not the tribute paid by Hezekiah.
64 chapter one
Table 4
99
This study will closely follow the method outlined by Habel in Literary Criticism, 2.
a source-critical approach to the problem 65
This division may imply that there are two separate literary elements
or two phases of literary composition evidenced in this passage.100 In
source-critical perspective it suggests that there are two different literary
hands at work here. This initial division is relatively simple, but only
begins the more difficult task of detailed analysis.
In order to determine whether this text is the result of multiple hands,
further comparisons of these seemingly parallel elements are in order.
Such comparison reveals a problem of who is actually sent to Jerusalem
to deliver Sennacheribs message. In the first parallel (hereafter strand )
the Assyrian messengers are identified as the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and
the Rabshakeh. However, in the second element (hereafter, strand )the
messengers are not explicitly identified. In strand Judean officers are
sent to meet the messengers (2 Kgs 18:18), while in strand it appears
Hezekiah personally meets up with them (2 Kgs 19:14). In strand the
message is delivered orally via a messenger, while in strand , the mes-
sage is delivered via letters (2 Kgs 19:14). In strand Hezekiah sends his
own messengers to the prophet Isaiah to seek an oracle (2 Kgs 19:2ff ),
but in strand Isaiah seems to provide an oracle unsolicited (2 Kgs
19:20). In strand , Isaiahs oracle (2 Kgs 19:67) is brief and promises
that Sennacherib will retreat due to commonplace events (hearing a
rumour). However, in strand , Isaiahs oracle is lengthy and ascribes
his retreat to Yahwehs direct unmediated action.101
This type of data suggests that this passage is composite and the
product of more than one author.102 Each views the events from his
own point of view, and recounts the event with varying detail. In order
to confirm our suspicions that this passage is composite, a focus on
the theological concerns of each unit is necessary. Strand focuses on
the rhetoric of the Assyrian orator. This can be seen in how the actual
relaying of his message occupies the majority of the passage. In strand
, the response of Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah is emphasized as
the passage consists largely of these orations. Strand was concerned
to relay fully the threats of the enemy and thereby emphasize the grav-
ity of the situation. Strand sets the brief actions that led to deliver-
ance in relief through its lengthy description of the Assyrian menace.
Conversely, strand only briefly depicted the latter, but instead focused
100
Ibid.
101
It is true that the oracle in strand also ascribed Sennacheribs retreat to Yah-
wehs actions, but those actions entailed mediation (a spirit and a rumour). In this
second oracle Yahweh claims he will personally put a hook in the Great Kings nose
and turn him around personally (2 Kgs 19:28).
102
Habel, Literary Criticism, 3.
66 chapter one
on the actions and words of the king and prophet. Strand explained
the deliverance of Jerusalem by an appeal to demonstrable events.103
Strand described the coming deliverance only in terms of unmediated
actions of the Israelite God himself.
These divergent emphases appear to reveal distinctive theological
concerns of the respective writers. Strand was concerned to relay the
historical situation and explain the turn of events according to measur-
able causal links. To be sure, the deliverance is presented as the work
of Yahweh, as predicted through his prophet, but it appears a need for
historical accuracy overcame the desire for theological hyperbole. Strand
represents a divergent theological stance where the emphasis is not
so much on history as it is on the nature and glorification of the Deity.
The event itself is sparsely described, while the prayer and oracle are
elaborated at length. In an effort to glorify the deity the deliverance is
described as the unmediated actions of Yahweh himself.
The exact lines of demarcation of these two strands are difficult to
delineate with certainty. It would appear that strand began with 2 Kgs
18:13 and ran until 2 Kgs 19:7. The parallel strand comprises 2 Kgs
19:937. The reason for the decision to demarcate the end of strand
at 2 Kgs 19:7 will be discussed further below. For now it is sufficient
to say that the content of is paralleled in completely until 2 Kgs
19:8 where a later redactor added an original section (2 Kgs 19:89)
to bridge the two strands.
Having tentatively determined that the Hezekiah-Sennacherib nar-
rative is a combination of at least two different strands, further inves-
tigation of these discrete sources is necessitated to determine whether
they are literary wholes themselves. As is well known, one of the sur-
est signs of composite authorship is diversity in the use of names or
designations of characters. In both strand and we find a variety of
designations employed to refer to the Judean monarch. He is variously
referred to as ( King Hezekiah), ( Hezekiah,
King of Judah), or simply Hezekiah. These designations are not uni-
formly employed throughout the narrative. In 2 Kgs 18:13, 17, 19:1,
5, the Judean king is designated King Hezekiah. In 2 Kgs 18:14(2x),
16; 19:10, Hezekiah is designated Hezekiah, King of Judah. In 2 Kgs
18:1, 10, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37; 19:3, 9, 14(2x), 15, 20, he is
designated simply by name with no reference to his kingship.104 When
these designations are used to divide the literary units, the result is:
103
Though supposedly initiated by the Deity.
104
These various designations do not line up according to traditional source deline-
ations: Account A contains all three designations; Account B1 contains both King
a source-critical approach to the problem 67
Table 5
Hezekiah and simply Hezekiah; and Account B2 employs both Hezekiah King of
Judah and simply Hezekiah.
105
Habel, Literary Criticism, 36.
68 chapter one
106
Despite the addition of the word gold in many modern translations. E.g., nrsv, niv.
107
Note the plural suffix indicating what Hezekiah gave Sennacherib. This is not
consistent with the idea that Hezekiah simply gave Sennacherib the gold off the temple
doors and doorposts(?) but indicates that the doors themselves were offered to the
Assyrian king.
108
The discrepancy is often accounted for by suggestions that the OT/HB used heavy
talents and the Assyrian annals used light talents. E.g., Robert W. Rogers, A History of
Babylonia and Assyria (2 vols.; New York: Abingdon, 1915), 2:371.
109
Scholars have often noted the contradiction in the portrayal of Hezekiah as temple
looter in 2 Kgs 18:1516 and as pious king who trusts in Yahweh in 2 Kgs 18:1719:37.
See Gray, Kings, 659, 666; and Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 100.
a source-critical approach to the problem 69
Table 6
Source E Source J
2 Kgs 18:13, 17, 1925; 19:1, 5 2 Kgs 18:1416, 2835; 19:10
2 Kgs 18:13invasion of 1416Hezekiah negotiates with
Sennacherib Sennacherib and pays tribute
2 Kgs 18:17messengers sent to 2 Kgs 18:28the Assyrian messenger
Jerusalem appears ( )and speaks.
2 Kgs 18:1925the message of the 2 Kgs 19:10warning Hezekiah
Assyrians
19:1Hezekiah hears the message 2 Kgs 18:3135the message of the
Assyrians
19:5Hezekiah sends to Isaiah
Now it behoves the critic to determine how these sources relate to the
previously discovered parallel literary strands, and . It is immedi-
ately obvious that both E and J are almost entirely subsumed within
strand . It is only the last portion of J (2 Kgs 19:10) that appears to
be incorporated within . This integration of the former into the latter
110
These source designations are further backed up by recognition of the distinctive
and characteristic terms and expressions within each unit. In the E strand, the favourite
verb for motion is to go / enter. This verb is employed in 2 Kgs 18:17; 19:1, 5.
That is in all but one of the verses where King Hezekiah is used as a designation,
but nowhere in the J strand. However, in the J strand the favourite action word is
(to give). This verb is found in every verse where the designation Hezekiah, King
of Judah is found, but it is found nowhere in source E. Rather than emphasizing the
motion of the characters, J chose to describe their exchanges.
70 chapter one
Table 7
Hizkiyahu Hizkiyah
2 Kgs 18:1 X
2 Kgs 18:9 X
2 Kgs 18:10 X
2 Kgs 18:13 X*
2 Kgs 18:14 X
2 Kgs 18:15 X
2 Kgs 18:16 X
2 Kgs 18:17 X
2 Kgs 18:19 X
2 Kgs 18:22 X
2 Kgs 18:29 X
2 Kgs 18:30 X
2 Kgs 18:30 X
2 Kgs 18:31 X
2 Kgs 18:32 X
2 Kgs 18:37 X
2 Kgs 19:1 X
2 Kgs 19:3 X
2 Kgs 19:5 X
2 Kgs 19:9 X
2 Kgs 19:10 X
2 Kgs 19:14 X
2 Kgs 19:15 X
2 Kgs 19:20 X
* Note that in 2 Kgs 18:13 the ben %Hayim text contains the
longer form while the ben Asher text has the shorter form.
Also, the parallel to 2 Kgs 18:13 in Isaiah 36:1 contains the
longer form.
111
As seen by their including the word gold in 2 Kgs 18:16.
a source-critical approach to the problem 71
Table 8
Spelling Hizkiyah
Unit 2 Kgs 18:1, 10, 14, 15, 16
Content 1notice of ascension
10Samarias fall dated to Hezekiahs reign
14Hezekiah negotiates with Sennacherib
15Hezekiah pays Sennacherib the silver
16Hezekiah gives temple doors to Sennacherib
112
The one exception is 2 Kgs 19:10 where the longer spelling is employed. If we
can assume purposeful change on the part of the editor here to make 19:10 blend in
with its new environment, the problem is resolved.
72 chapter one
2 Kgs 18:10 which does not refer to Hezekiahs kingship. However, this
anomaly could be explained in various ways and should not detract from
our hypothesis.113 The rest of the narrative retains the longer spelling of
Hezekiahs name and cannot be used to discern sources as its presence
pervades all other sources involved.
Further sources are detected through the differences in the spell-
ing of names in this passage. In strand we find variant spellings for
two of Hezekiahs ambassadors. In 2 Kgs 18:18 and 18:26, Hilkiah,
the name of Eliakims father, is spelled and Shebna is spelled
. However, in 2 Kgs 18:37 Hilkiah is spelled and Shebna is
spelled . Shebna is also spelled in 2 Kgs 19:2, but Eliakims
father is not mentioned. These spelling differences suggest that 2 Kgs
18:18 and 26 come from a source distinct from that of 2 Kgs 18:37 and
19:2. We will designate the former source P (for plene) and the latter
D (for defective).
Table 9
Source P D
Unit 2 Kgs 18:18, 26 2 Kgs 18:37, 19:2
Content 18These officials intercept the 37These officials commu-
Assyrian messengers nicate the Assyrian message
26These officials attempt to pre- to Hezekiah
vent the message of the Assyrians 19:2Hezekiah sends these
from being communicated officials to Isaiah
113
E.g., in order to avoid redundancy the reference to his kingship, which was already
noted in the verse before, was omitted in this instance.
a source-critical approach to the problem 73
114
In Isa 22:1525 it is said that Shebna will be replaced by Eliakim.
115
In Isaiah 22 there is a conflation as to the spellings of Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna
is spelled the same as in D, while Eliakim is spelled as in P. This may be a result of
the influence of the addition of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib pericope to the book of
Isaiah. In Isaiah 22 Shebna and not Eliakim is referred to as the one over the house.
This may be an attempt by the author of Isaiah 22 to demonstrate a change of power
from Shebna to Eliakim, even though it appears that Shebna was the secretary. Or
alternatively, if the title over the house is an anachronism in P, it would also explain
why Shebna was held responsible since he actually was over the house at the time of
the Assyrian crisis.
116
This occurred so early in their literary history that one may have thought them
to be one source, if we did not recognize the clear differences in the way they designate
Hezekiah (as noted above).
74 chapter one
Table 10
with a balanced unit. This also solves the problem of the mention of
the Assyrians name. Once this portion is removed, the Sitz im Leben
of the prayer seems apparent. It is a psalm composed in response to
the Assyrian wars. Its relative antiquity need not be doubted, though
its origin in the crisis of 701 is uncertain.
Strand also contains three oracles that clearly have been placed
together secondarily by the editor. The introduction to the oracles in
2 Kgs 19:20 is a free composition of the compiler of , mentioning Sen-
nacherib by name and manufacturing an artificial Sitz im Leben for the
oracles that follow.117 The secondary nature of these oracles is so widely
accepted that a detailed treatment of the reasons seems unnecessary.118
Briefly summarized, the taunt song obviously is out of place, as evi-
denced by the lack of continuity with the present context. Isaiah states
that this prophecy is about Sennacherib, but then the oracle proceeds
to address Sennacherib in second person. The sudden change in person
is unexpected and awkward (cf. the prophecy in 2 Kgs 19:67 which
refers to the Assyrian in more natural third person forms).
Reference in the taunt song to the Assyrians conquering Egypt nec-
essarily indicates that the prophecy was not originally directed against
Sennacherib, who did not invade Egypt.119 Also the clumsy addition
of 2 Kgs 19:23a indicates it is an attempt to tie in this poem with the
narrative that precedes.120 The previous verse noted that the person
addressed raised his voice and lifted his eyes against the Holy
One of Israel. However, in the addition to 2 Kgs 19:23 it is noted that
the addressed person mocked the Lord ( )through the agency of
messengers. This obvious contradiction is not easily explained without
acknowledging it as an interpolation. Not only does this verse inter-
rupt the natural flow from whom have you mocked (v. 22) to you
have said, (v. 23b) but the employment of ( Lord) instead of
(Yahweh) bespeaks its lateness, when the former began to replace the
latter. Conversely, 2 Kgs 19:22 employed the Isaianic Holy One of
117
Regarding evidence of the same literary hand composing 2 Kgs 19:20 and 2 Kgs
19:9 see below.
118
E.g., Gray (Kings, 688) calls these a collection of typical oracles from this period.
Fritz (Kings, 369) calls them redactional elements. Kaiser (Jesaja, 314) views the
taunt-song and sign as interpolations (so Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 96).
119
Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 243) suggest that the reference is either to Ashur-
banipal or Esarhaddon who did invade Egypt.
120
This addition attempts to tie in the poem by mentioning Assyrian messengers,
which were mentioned in the narrative as well.
76 chapter one
121
A later author would doubtless have rather invented a sign which came to imme-
diate fruition. Fritz (Kings, 378) concludes against its authenticity since it does not
predict the immediate change of the situation that the context would lead to expect.
However he fails to recognize the Isaianic character of the sign. Demand of a more
immediate fulfilling sign is something foreign to the text.
122
Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus says the Lord, the God
of Israel: I have heard your prayer to me about King Sennacherib of Assyria. (19:20)
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria. . . . (19:32) Scholars have
often viewed vv. 3233 to be the direct continuation of v. 20. E.g., Childs, Assyrian
Crisis, 96; and Fritz, Kings, 374.
123
E.g., deliver in 18:3032 and 19:11; to trust in 18:30 and 19:10.
a source-critical approach to the problem 77
has striking similarities with the parallel list in ( 2 Kgs 18:34 // 2 Kgs
19:1213).124 The list in both and of cities which failed to prevent
Assyrian dominance bear striking similarity to the cities whence Sargon
II brought people to settle in the newly conquered Samaria mentioned in
2 Kgs 17:24. A comparison of these lists is presented in the table below.
Table 11
Three cities are common to all: Hamath, Sepharvaim and Ivvah / Avva.
The occurrence of these same toponyms in three different sources points
to the veracity of their information. However, strand lists four cities
not listed in strand . A clue to the import of these cities is found in
2 Kgs 17:6 where Gozan is listed as one of the places where Israelite
deportees were settled. It would appear that the other cities listed with
Gozan in strand are likely to be understood as other places in which
the Israelites were resettled.125 It is therefore obvious that the author of
strand was better informed about the Assyrian deportations than was
Dtr (who is widely agreed to have composed 2 Kgs 17:6 and 24). He
124
Contra Naaman (Updating the Messages, 206) who asserts, The list of cities in
2 Kgs 19:1213 is almost entirely different from the list in 2 Kgs 18:3334 (emphasis
mine).
125
So Ben Zvi (Who Wrote the Speech, 8991) and Gonalves (Lexpdition, 462).
For an alternative view see Naaman, Updating the Messages, 207; idem, New Light
on Hezekiahs Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b35), Bib 81 (2000): 393402. A
conclusion similar to Naamans is found in Steven W. Holloway, Harran: Cultic
Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Implications for Sennacheribs Let-
ter to Hezekiah in 2 Kings, in The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gsta W.
Ahlstrm (ed. Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy; JSOTSup 190; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 276314.
78 chapter one
obviously stood closer to the events than Dtr and had access to superior
sources, as suggested by his more complete list of cities. In regards to
delineation of sources, the lack of complete agreement between the
strands regarding theses cities, points to the speeches in and being
independent traditions. The striking similarities suggest that both reflect
actual historical memory.126
Having delineated four major sources involved in the composition
of and at least three different sources for , we must now turn to
suggesting their Sitz im Leben. Strand has the markings of authentic
historical events. It relied on sources close to the time of Sennacheribs
invasion. J in particular appears to recall persons and events vividly,
suggesting it was composed under the impress of the actual events. It
did not hesitate to record the paying of tribute by Hezekiah, although
Dtr hails him as a model king. This bespeaks its trustworthiness. E
also gives the impression of historical verisimilitude. It recalls the visit
of the Assyrian emissaries with a vividness that suggests eyewitness
information. It did, of course, incorporate sources detailing the actions
of Eliakim, et al., but their role is inconsequential to the overall verity
of the episode. We would suggest dating both J and E to the period
immediately following the withdrawal of Sennacherib. A precise date
cannot be affirmed confidently, but a date sometime during the reign
of Hezekiah seems preferable. It may be that J was the production of
royal annalists who were concerned foremost with the actions of the
king. E, on the other hand, could be the work of temple annalists who
were more concerned with theological colouring. E was first combined
with P and D, then joined with J. These were soon combined into a
single account ( )by annalists in Jerusalem who recorded the event for
posterity. So we would date to the early 7th century b.c.e.
Source on the other hand appears to be of a slightly later origin
than . Its core appears to be a framework that succinctly presents the
events of 701. However, it also relied heavily on traditional material
that post-dated the event, such as psalms and prophetic oracles. This
126
The cities listed in are drawn from the campaigns of Sennacheribs father, Sargon
II. Hamath was annexed to the Assyrian territory ca. 720 b.c.e. Naaman suggests that
Arpad was reorganized shortly after 722 b.c.e. though it was an Assyrian province since
738 b.c.e. The cities listed in which differ from those in seems to be drawn from
still earlier campaigns of Ashurnasirpal II (883859) and Shalmaneser III (858824).
See Naaman, Updating the Messages, 2056. The cities which are common to both
strands refer to several cities that rebelled against Sargon.
a source-critical approach to the problem 79
poetry was only secondarily associated with these events and reveals
an ideological development that was more concerned with theologi-
cal recital than a critical approach to source materials. However, the
conclusion to demonstrates its antiquity, as such theological embel-
lishments (the angelic destruction) were abandoned in the description
of historical events in later Jewish historiography.127 We would suggest
that originated in the period shortly after Hezekiahs reign when
Manasseh was re-introducing the worship of foreign gods. This would
explain why the author of included the psalm with the repeated
affirmation that Yahweh alone is God (2 Kgs 19:15, 19). As well, the
virulent criticisms of the Assyrian empire would fit with the period of
Manassehs reign when Assyrian dominance was at its peak. A date
later than that of is suggested in the more complete list of conquered
cities recorded by .
We must now suggest at what stage of transmission and were
combined. Their amalgamation surely dates to the time of the exile and
the compilation of the History by Dtr. This dating is suggested by the
historical notice of Sennacheribs death, which relies on Babylonian
documents accessed during the exile.128 Dtr had at his disposal the paral-
lel narratives of and and either considered them distinct enough to
view them as referring to separate events, or was simply unwilling to
choose one over the other. Therefore, he ordered them sequentially as
127
The losses suffered by the Assyrian army would appear to have a historical kernel.
These same events may be reflected in Herodotus account of field mice which decimated
the Assyrian camp. Furthermore, the Assyrian annals themselves do not record the tak-
ing of Jerusalem and this requires an historical explanation. Perhaps some unexpected
setback occurred which required Sennacherib to return to Nineveh. This setback was
described by in terms of angelic intervention. As noted above, the conclusion to
seems to have been lost. As it now stands it would appear that the prophet predicted
that Yahweh would put a spirit in the Assyrian king and a rumour would cause an
Assyrian retreat. This too is a piece of theological colouring as a rumour could hardly
be expected to terminate a campaign such as this. The appeal to a spirit possessing
Sennacherib is also an appeal to divine causation in the deliverance of Jerusalem.
Therefore, a pejorative estimation of strand due to its miraculous climax should be
avoided. For all we know the climax to the strand was equally miraculous as sug-
gested by the prophet in 2 Kgs 19:7.
128
As Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 244) assert, this information could only have
derived from a Babylonian chronicle. Such chronicles which recount the history of
relations between Babylonia and Assyria, are Babylonian in origin and were exten-
sively copied in the Neo-Babylonian period. It stands to reason that the late editor of
Kings . . . excerpted this notation from a Babylonian chronicle.
80 chapter one
129
Long ago, Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 137 n. 63) theorized whether Dtr. in
fact [was] the first to combine two series of Isaiah legends (cf. the double account in
18:1719:37).
130
We noted above that 2 Kgs 19:20 with its artificial introduction to the taunt song
was a free composition of the later editor. There is evidence that suggests the same
literary hand composed not only 2 Kgs 19:20 but also the narrative bridge found in
2 Kgs 19:9a. Both of these verses contain an irregular use of the preposition . In both
instances Dtr uses this preposition with the meaning concerning or about rather than
the standard to / unto etc. Of course, the use of this preposition in this way is not
completely unique. In fact, it is not exceptional when it is used in connection with
to say (as noted in BDB, 40). (This use of is also found in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative in 2 Kgs 19:32 Therefore, thus says Yahweh concerning ( )the king of
Assyria). However, when it is not used with ( to say) this meaning is extremely
rare. Yet it is used in both 2 Kgs 19:9 and 2 Kgs 19:20 with no connection to ( to
say). In fact, both occurrences use the preposition with this meaning in combination
with the verb ( to hear). This is significant because when occurs with the
meaning consistently is listen to not hear about / concerning (e.g., Isa 46:3, 12; 55:2;
Ezek 36:7; Jer 36:25). When the meaning is hear about we would expect the preposi-
tion not ( e.g., Gen 41:15; 1 Kgs 10:6). Another common meaning of this idiom
is to obey (e.g., Gen 28:7; Ex 6:9; Jos 1:17; 1 Kgs 12:15). But using the idiom with the
meaning to hear about is very rare and can be considered a literary distinctive of this
passage. In fact, the only other instance is found in Ezek 19:4 which pictures Jehoahaz
as a lion cub who was carried off to Egypt by Neco after the nations hear about him.
It is quite significant that these two occurrences appear in passages we have already
identified as created out of whole cloth by the editor, whom we suggest is Dtr.
131
Note the first person verb ( I will make him fall) in v. 7.
a source-critical approach to the problem 81
III. Conclusion
132
As Habel (Literary Criticism, 7) states the value of the hypothesis depends
upon . . . the contribution the theory makes to a richer appreciation of the document
under examination.
133
Perhaps due chiefly to the status of the Stade-Childs analysis in the historical-
critical canon.
82 chapter one
134
E.g., the officials attempt to prevent the message from being communicated is
not an action subversive to Hezekiah. The Rabshakeh properly understands their goal
when he questions Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and
to you, and not to the people sitting on the wall (2 Kgs 18:27). They were trying to
prevent the civilians from hearing the threats, not Hezekiah.
135
In fact, Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 8586) refers to 2 Kgs 18:2835 as the Rabshakehs
second speech. Le Moyne (Deux ambassades, 149153) recognized the speeches as
separate and suggested joining the second speech to Account B2.
136
Hjelm (Jerusalems Rise, 36) highlights this fact in service of her argument that
the text is less historiography than theology since this verse is lacking all considera-
tion for chronological consistency (these gods were first brought into the area after
a source-critical approach to the problem 83
This was to frighten the people who would recall the fate of Samaria
and the fact that the people now living to the north were from these
very regions. The letter-threat mentions the same regions, but in con-
tradistinction highlights the fate of the kings of those defeated regions
(2 Kgs 19:13). This is understandable given the different addressee of
the letter-threat. Each threat is tailored to its audience.
In addition to the aforementioned lands, the letter-threat mentions
four previously unmentioned regions as nations that my [Sennacheribs]
fathers destroyed (19:12). These regions are actually mentioned prior
to the other aforementioned regions. Their mention has the effect of
highlighting the success of Assyria to Hezekiah and the impotence of
their gods to deliver them. Following this list, the letter-threat refers
to the same regions mentioned in the Rabshakehs speech, but for the
purpose of causing Hezekiah to ponder his own fate should he continue
to rebel. In case the fate of the nation did not alarm him, or if Hezekiah
thought he could escape even if his nation was conquered, the letter-
threat emphasizes that the kings of the aforeconquered nations shared
the same fate as the nation. There is an increase in the intimidation
factor here as the second list of nations emphasizes Hezekiahs imminent
fate. Therefore, for narratival / rhetorical reasons, the purpose of the
second threat required use of further nations names in order to belittle
both gods and kings. There is no reason to view them as superfluous
and contradictory threats that must come from parallel sources. This
second threat not only heightens the blasphemy by suggesting that
Yahweh will deceive, it also more directly threatens the king himself
by noting the fate in particular of the kings of the nations previously
mentioned as conquered by Assyria.
Thirdly, the suggestion that various elements of the lengthier second
prophecy by Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:1034 were not originally written for this
situation does not militate against the unity of the passage. Granting
the probability that some of these were written for other occasions, they
need not be viewed as later additions. In fact, it is possible they may
have been included in the narrative by the author himself.137 Ackroyd
the fall of Samaria; cf. 17.24). The realization that the text has theological concerns
over historical ones comes as no new revelation. However, whether there is a historical
problem with the statement is debatable. It is possible that the Rabshakeh was ignorant
of the fact that those gods were not indigenous to Samaria (cf. his flawed understanding
of Hezekiahs reform). Also, it could even be used to argue that the worship of those
deities in Samaria has not since liberated them from the Assyrian yoke.
137
As Smelik (King Hezekiah, 120) argues.
84 chapter one
138
Ackroyd, Biblical Interpretation, 345.
139
The Stade-Childs hypothesis failed to take into account all the evidence. E.g., it
ignores the divergent spelling of Shebna and Hilkiah and the occurrence of Hezekiah,
King of Judah in B2.
140
As noted above, in 2 Kgs 18:13 the ben H ayim text contains the longer form
while the ben Asher text has the shorter form. Also, the parallel to 2 Kgs 18:13 in Isa
36:1 contains the longer form.
141
Not long agoS. Japhet attempted arguments for diverse authorship based on the
spelling of theophoric names. However, F. M. Cross (A Reconsideration of the Judean
Restoration, JBL 94 [1975]: 118) challenged Sara Japhets (The Supposed Common
Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew, VT 18 [1968]:
33272) conclusion that there is linguistic opposition with the different spelling of
theophoric names in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Cross acknowledges Japhets
strong arguments against common authorship but argues Some of her arguments . . . do
not hold, I believe, as can be seen by an examination of the two Isaiah scrolls of Cave
1 Qumran, or a comparison of 4QSamA and 4QSamB, where common authorship
is certain (Reconsideration, 14). Cross pointed out that 1QIsaa and 1QIsab display
both short and plene forms of theophoric elements. 1QIsab consistently uses the long
ending -yhw as does the MT. Therefore, it is probable that the problem is scribal in
nature and not concomitant with the question of authorship. In other words, the
scribal tradition lying behind Chronicles was simply more consistent than that lying
behind Ezra-Nehemiah.
142
Ziony Zevit, A Chapter in the History of Israelite Personal Names, BASOR 250
(1983): 116. Zevit also notes that both forms are reflected in extra-biblical sources
with Ha-za-qi-ia and Ha-za-qi/qi-a-u both found in Assyrian sources (14).
143
Zevit, Israelite Personal Names, 14.
a source-critical approach to the problem 85
144
As Habel (Literary Criticism, 18) points out, isolating distinctive grammatical
constructions is a common source-critical way of discerning sources.
145
Ibid.
CHAPTER TWO
I. Rhetorical-Critical Analysis
1
Shimon Bar-Efrat, Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical
Narrative, VT 30 (1980): 154173.
88 chapter two
2
Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001), 40.
3
Fritz (Kings, 358) notes that this introductory formula for Hezekiah does differ
in some respects from the usual Dtr pattern regarding the cult reform in v. 4 and the
portrayal of Hezekiahs piety in vv. 57.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 89
1. Syntactical Analysis
To determine the structures of both the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
and the Hezekiah macro-narrative of which it is a part, a close look at
the syntax is necessitated. Standard Hebrew narrative is characterized
by a chain of waw-consecutive imperfect (wayyiqtol) verbs.4 These
waw-consecutive imperfect verbs form the backbone of the narrative,
and are divided into paragraphs by the use of non-consecutive verbs
and temporal markers.5 Paragraphs are usually begun by ( and it
was) and often in tandem with a perfect (qatal) verbal form.6 When
( and it was) is not employed to begin a paragraph, commonly
another temporal marker or a perfect verb will signal the boundary
of a paragraph.7 Paragraphs are typically concluded by independent
non-consecutive verbal clauses (when the initiation of the following
paragraph is not explicit) or terminal waw-consecutive imperfect clauses
(when the initiation of the following paragraph is clearly indicated).8
Since a perfect verbal clause can conclude or initiate a paragraph,
narrative context must aid in determining the function of a perfect
verbal form. If the focus of the perfect verb is the same as the waw-
consecutive verb that preceded it, then it functions to conclude the
paragraph. However, if the focus of the perfect verb is the same as the
4
See Lambdin, Biblical Hebrew 132; Joon 118c; and IBHS, 543.
5
As Roy L. Heller (Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis
of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose [HSS 55; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2004], 435) has observed, the presence of non-consecutive verbal forms breaks the
continuity of the story and effectively provides a boundary between discrete sections
of narrative.
6
Heller (ibid., 432) has further refined Lambdins insights regarding the syntax of
Hebrew narrative in his analysis of the Joseph novella and the Court Narrative. He
concludes that the beginnings of paragraphs are explicitly marked by one of two types
of independent clauses: temporal clauses and independent QAT AL clauses. Joon
(118c) similarly states that usually a narrative begins with a qatal (historic perfect) and
continues with a wayyiqtol. . . . Conversely, Alviero Niccacci (The Syntax of the Verb
in Classical Hebrew Prose [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 1617) has argued that qatal
precedes the narrative proper and only gives retrospective information that introduces
the event to be narrated. In this view the narrative proper begins with the wayyiqtol
that follows the initial qatal, but for our purposes both agree that the beginning of
sentences or paragraphs are often marked with qatal followed by wayyiqtol verbs.
7
Some scholars have called attention to such use of perfect forms. See Robert E.
Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic
Analysis of Genesis 37 and 3948 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 7677.
Longacre has also noted the common structure of ( and it was) with a temporal
expression and a waw-consecutive (82).
8
As Heller (Narrative Structure, 440) has demonstrated. Joon (181i) has also
noted that wayyiqtol forms can conclude paragraphs.
90 chapter two
9
Heller, Narrative Structure, 434.
10
As Lambdin (Biblical Hebrew 132) has observed, this is standard in Hebrew
narrative.
11
As Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 26) notes, when a circumstance or another nomi-
nal element comes before the principle action, this action is expressed by QATAL.
12
Niccacci observes that it is common in Hebrew narrative to begin with such an
introduction providing previous information by means of non-wayyiqtol clauses (which
he calls nominal clauses arguing that only sentences initiated by wayyiqtol verbs
are verbal). See Alviero Niccacci, Analysis of Biblical Narrative, in Biblical Hebrew
and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Dallas; Tex.: Summer Institute of
Linguistics, 1994), 181, 176. Contra Longacre (Joseph, 78) who labels any verb initial
clause a verb clause and any noun initial clause a noun clause. Regnal rsums follow
this pattern of multiple non-waw-consecutive and unchained wayyiqtol verbs in offline
comments (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:18). However, the Hezekiah regnal rsum is unusually long
and atypical in this regard.
13
Heller (Narrative Structure, 429430, 450) distinguishes between what he calls
inner-paragraph comments, which give information regarding part of the immediate
narrative and extra-paragraph comments, which provide information of a broader
scope like background circumstances etc. Such comments provide information but
are not part of the sequential character of the story and do not propel the narrative
further.
14
See ibid.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 91
15
E.g., ( he removed) ( and he smashed) ( and he cut) ( he
crushed) etc. In 2 Kgs 18:4. Heller (ibid., 456) has argued that extra-paragraph com-
ments are signalled by multiple verbal forms like these, outside of a wayyiqtol nar-
rative backbone. He notes that even wayyiqtol clauses may be part of such comment
clauses. He writes by means of various types of multiple non-WAYYIQT OL clauses
and unchained WAYYIQT OL clauses, the narrator provides information to the reader
about characters, settings or actions not directly situated within the sequentiality of
the main narrative.
16
This entire paragraph of Hezekiahs regnal rsum is a preface to the real nar-
rative. As Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb, 36) notes in the book of Kings date formula
often introduce the deeds of the individual kings and precede the narrative proper.
Niccacci refers to 2 Kgs 18:18 as all commentary and notes that the narrative itself
does not resume until v. 9. This commentary recounts Hezekiahs deeds apart from
actions the writer wishes to emphasize (48).
17
As is well known, ( and it was) is nearly a universal indication of paragraph
commencement. Heller (Narrative Structure, 434) calls a metasyntactical marker
for the beginning of a paragraph and notes its near universality in indicating para-
graph initiation.
18
As Waltke and OConnor (IBHS, 551) note, If a narrative sequence begins with
a clause containing the verb , the following relative-waw clause explains the overall
situation represented by it.
19
Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 21) has observed that when a non-initial qatal is
preceded by an element which is nominal (noun) or adverbial . . . the QATAL is used to
provide comment on an aspect of the preceding main action, expressed by WAYYIQ-
TOL, or to portray another action against the background of the first. Similarly, Hel-
ler (Narrative Structure, 446) has noted that when a perfect verb stands in semantic
parallel with a preceding waw-consecutive imperfect clause, the perfect clause takes
on the function of an inner-paragraph comment. Here we have a chained wayyiqtol
of ( to capture) followed by a perfect of the same root (a semantic parallel) and
it functions to provide supplementary information. Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 48)
cites this verse as an example where the contrast between wayyiqtol and qatal place
emphasis on the element that precedes the qatal verbthe date which precedes the
actual QATAL.
92 chapter two
20
Lambdin (Biblical Hebrew 132) has pointed out how non-wayyiqtol verbs often
give circumstantial or explanatory information within a Hebrew narrative. These occur-
rences of the non-consecutive perfect do not break up the waw-consecutive sequence,
but only provide an inner-paragraph comment. As an inner-paragraph comment this
clause merely provides further information about what has been narrated and does
not propel the narrative forward.
21
Citing this verse as his example, Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 37) notes that
a conditional clause of time, expressed by the construction preposition + noun
can introduce a paragraph, but notes that when it is not preceded by it is often
emphatic with emphasis placed on the initial circumstance. This is also relevant for
2 Kgs 18:16 as well.
22
And for the circumstantial setting of the action that follows. As Niccacci (ibid.)
has noted, this construction with qatal are instances of a narrative opening with a
circumstance affecting the main action. This suggests that the action described here
occasions the visit of the Assyrian emissaries in the next verse.
23
Two perfect verbs occur in the comment: ( they were silent) and ( they
answered) (v. 36). Heller (Narrative Structure, 450) has observed that non-wayyiqtol
verbal clauses often syntactically signal off-line comments within a paragraph. Cf.
Niccacci, Syntax of the Verb 21.
24
As noted above when the beginning of the following paragraph is explicitly
signalled (in this case by + infinitive in 2 Kgs 19:1) a terminal waw-consecutive
imperfect concludes the paragraph. See Heller, Narrative Structure, 440.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 93
25
This is a common syntactic construction ( + preposition + infinitive construct).
Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 32) notes that this construction when employing indi-
cates simultaneity of action but when employing emphasizes that an action follows
immediately. Here the narrative emphasizes the immediacy of Hezekiahs actions.
26
The direct speech of Hezekiah through his messengers (2 Kgs 19:34) contains
non-consecutive verbs, but it does not disrupt the essential waw-consecutive sequence.
This can be seen in how 2 Kgs 19:5 continues the waw-consecutive sequence, though
Isaiahs direct speech contains non-consecutive verbs. Second Kings 19:8 continues
the waw-consecutive sequence. Similarly, in 2 Kgs 19:9, the news concerning Tirhakah
( behold, he came out to fight you) interrupts the sequence but the
narrative returns to waw-consecutive immediately following the quotation ( and
he returned). Heller (Narrative Structure, 4567) has demonstrated how no consistent
or predominant verbal type is characteristic of direct discourse in Hebrew narrative.
27
Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 39) notes how non wayyiqtol verbs often interrupt
the wayyiqtol chain to express an antecedent circumstance which seems to be the
case here.
28
Paragraphs are typically concluded by independent non-waw-consecutive verbal
clauses or terminal waw-consecutive imperfect clauses. See Heller, Narrative Structure,
440.
29
As noted above, a terminal waw-consecutive imperfect clause (when the initiation
of the following paragraph is clearly indicated) is a common method of concluding a
paragraph. See ibid.
94 chapter two
30
A relative clause contains a perfect verb in 2 Kgs 20:11b ( it descended) but
provides an offline comment (describing exactly how far Yahweh reversed the sun dial)
and does not propel the narrative forward.
31
Two perfects, to hear and to be sick appear in the off-line comment
(2 Kgs 20:12). As Niccacci (Syntax of the Verb 21) has observed, in these situations a
qatal is often used to portray another action against the background of the first. Here,
the action of hearing is portrayed against the background of Hezekiahs sickness.
32
Cf. 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19, 29; 15:7, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 46; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23;
10:34; 12:20; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25;
23:28; 24:5.
33
The following section is clearly separated from the Hezekiah narrative by subject
matter and through the employment of a temporal phrase and perfect verb ( to
reign) in 2 Kgs 21:1.
34
Through the reference to Manassehs ascension to the throne (2 Kgs 20:21).
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 95
Table 12
35
Louis C. Jonker (Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles: Late Stages of the Josiah
Reception in II Chr. 34f [TSHB 2; Gtersloh: Gtersloher, 2003], 16) distinguishes
between what he calls text-internal and text-external temporal markers by whether
they attempt to mark time in relation to the narrated events or some extra-narrative
events.
36
For example, the temporal marker in v. 13 has received great attention due to
the fact that the fourteenth year does not agree with dates in the Assyrian records.
Therefore, amending to the twenty fourth year has been suggested. See Cogan and
96 chapter two
Tadmor, II Kings, 228; and Edwin R. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings:
A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1951), 11840. Others have suggested that the fourteenth
year of Hezekiah was 714 b.c.e. and that the invading Assyrian king was actually
Sargon. See Jenkins, Hezekiahs Fourteenth Year, 284298; and Becking, Chronol-
ogy, 4672. Similarly, the temporal marker in 2 Kgs 18:16, at that time has usually
been noted only in connection with source-critical ends. Cf. Montgomery, Archival
Data, 4652.
37
There are also temporal phrases or words in the Hezekiah macro narrative that
do not have a structural purpose and should not be referred to as markers (e.g.,
2 Kgs 18:4 ( until those days) which relays background information;
2 Kgs 18:23 ( and now) and 2 Kgs 18:25 ( now) which are part of the direct
speech of the Rabshakeh etc.).
38
In that order. It is interesting to note that time is related to Hezekiahs reign
first and then Hosheas even though it is the latters fate that is recounted here. This
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 97
in Hezekiahs sixth year, that is, Hosheas ninth year (2 Kings 18:10)
Similar to the last temporal marker which indicated when Samaria came
under Assyrian siege, this temporal marker dates the fall of Samaria to
the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign and the tenth year of Hosheas. This
marker demonstrates the significance of this event by noting a date
both at the beginning and at the consummation of the event. It also
marks off the narrative dealing with these events into a distinct section.
It should also be noted that this information provided in this section
(2 Kgs 18:912) has already been given in the previous chapter.39 Its
repetition here forms an envelope around the extended regnal rsum
of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:18.40
and in King Hezekiahs fourteenth year (2 Kings 18:13)
This temporal marker places the invasion of Sennacherib, king of Assyria,
in the fourteenth year of Hezekiahs reign. This clearly sets it apart
from the earlier pericope which was said to occur between Hezekiahs
fourth and sixth years. It is in relation to this date that the reader must
view the text-internal temporal markers that follow. Surprisingly, this
is the last text-external marker in the Hezekiah macro-narrative. Even
the distinct sections that follow the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
emphasizes that this narrative is really part of the Hezekiah narrative and not a Hoshea
narrative. In 2 Kings 17 a Hoshea narrative was already recounted. While the initial
element of Hosheas royal frame indicated the year of Ahazs reign first, when the siege
and fall of Samaria is recounted, the events are dated according to Hosheas year of
reign and not the king of Judahs.
39
Note how this relates this section to the previous chapter which is outside the
bounds delimited for the Hezekiah narrative. This is an example of how pericopes are
part of more than one context.
40
An example of a narrator relaying information already given earlier in the nar-
rative is pointed out by Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives) in the Story of Saul and
the witch at Endor. She observes, When readers reach the story about Saul and the
woman necromancer, they should know that Samuel has died, but evidently the writer
did not wish to relay upon the readers memory and preferred to note Samuels death
by launching into the story of the conjuring of his ghost. If so, the repetition of this
information has a functional reason (35). In the Hezekiah narrative the repetition
functions to highlight a potential problem with Hezekiahs reign and provides the
beginning of the complication that propels the story. We were just told that Hezekiah
had rebelled against Assyria (2 Kgs 19:7) and have now been reminded how powerful
and successful Assyria has been in the past. How will this powerful nation respond to
Judahs defiance of its lordship?
98 chapter two
41
Amit (ibid., 18) notes that for demarcating units, rhetorical critics propose
structural principles of symmetry (or inclusion), that is, beginning and ending with
a similar subject, phrase, or word. Here our unit begins and ends with mention of
Sennacherib. The larger unit that begins with Hezekiahs regnal rsum ends with
Sennacherib succeeded by his son.
42
Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan (Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics [London:
Methuen, 1983], 46) defines analepsis as a narration of the story-event at a point in
the text after later events have been told.
43
Of course, the character assemblage of Hezekiah and Isaiah is not completely
discordant with the previous narrative as it also contained scenes with both Hezekiah
and Isaiah.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 99
44
Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 111.
45
Longacre (Joseph, 179) points out that syntax can only signal a break; it cannot
signal the textual significance of that break.
46
Of course, the character assemblage returns to Hezekiah and Isaiah in the latter
section of this narrative, and, therefore, is not completely discordant with the previ-
ous narrative.
100 chapter two
47
Jonker, King Josiah, 18.
48
Ibid.
49
Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 19. In his discussion of 2 Kgs 18:14 Childs
(Assyrian Crisis, 71) notes that the expression [ at that time] when it stands
at the head of a sentence, often indicates a break in the continuity of events caused
by some new factor.
50
As Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 60) notes, [a transition] from unit to unit
indicates the progress of the plot.
51
Contra Montgomery (Book of Kings, 497) who argues that the time expression
is indefinite = on such and such a night.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 101
52
Sennacherib did not die in 701 b.c.e., but some twenty years later. See Bright,
History, 303. Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 153) has noted the rarity of unbridged time
gaps within narratives, but notes that they are often bridged by summary accounts. In
this case,the summary may be and he dwelled in Nineveh . Analogously,
Honor (Sennacheribs Invasion, 72, n. 21) saw the latter phrase as implying a time gap
between Sennacheribs return and his murder.
53
The introduction to the Hezekiah-macro narrative summarizes Hezekiahs ascen-
sion and the beginning of his reign. As Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 150) has observed
102 chapter two
Table 13
that time passes far more quickly in a summary account than in scenic representa-
tion. . . .
54
As Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 108) has pointed out the more important
the subject matter, the longer its time of narration. Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 151) has
also drawn attention to the extending of time as essential to discovering the narratives
focal points and the relative importance of its various subjects. Ben Zvi (Malleability
and its Limits) has noted the unusually large space given to this event. He observes,
No military or political crisis of the divided monarchy received so much narrative
space in the book [12 Kings], including the story of the fall of Jerusalem (83).
55
Naaman (Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria, TA 21 [1994]: 235, 24547)
has determined that Merodach-baladans embassy to Jerusalem should be dated to
704/703 b.c.e.
56
And of course, as many have noted, when the Babylonian envoys come to Jerusa-
lem in 1 Kgs 20:12, the treasury has clearly not been despoiled by Hezekiah to pay off
Sennacherib since the former shows the riches of Jerusalem to the Babylonians (2 Kgs
20:13). The postponement of the narratives of 2 Kings 20 may be due to an effort to
highlight the Deuteronomistic principle of retribution. First, Hezekiahs achievements
are narrated (his piety during the Assyrian assault), after which his shortcomings are
narrated (showing the Babylonians his treasures). In this way the author severs the
chronological connection of Hezekiahs sin and then deliverance which would threaten
to undermine his retribution theological outlook.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 103
1. Scenes
A narrative is created by the grouping together of different scenes.
Demarcating different scenes depends largely on spatial shifts and
changes in character constellations, though time transitions can also
indicate a scene change, even when character assemblages do not
change.57 The Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is made up of eight
scenes. Scene one (2 Kgs 18:1315) narrates the initial encounter
between Sennacherib and Hezekiah at Lachish. Scene two (2 Kgs 18:16)
narrates Hezekiahs despoiling of the temple (the scene change is sig-
nalled by the time transition, despite including the same characters as
scene one). Scene three (2 Kgs 18:1736) shifts locales to Jerusalem and
changes character constellations as the meeting between the representa-
tives of both Sennacherib and Hezekiah is narrated. Scene four (2 Kgs
18:3719:7) narrates Hezekiahs reaction to the Rabshakehs speech
and Isaiahs response as the story once again shifts locales (from the
conduit of the upper pool to Hezekiahs royal palace) and character
assemblages (the Assyrian officials are not present, and the Judean offi-
cials have come into the presence of Hezekiah and Isaiah is consulted).
The transition to scene five (2 Kgs 19:813) is signalled by a spatial
shift (from Jerusalem to Libnah) and change in character assemblages
(leaving behind the Judean characters). This scene narrates the return
of the Rabshakeh to his master and the order to send messengers to
Jerusalem once againincluding the dictation of what they will say.58
57
Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 96) notes that a scene is defined through the characters
participating in it. When all or some of the characters change a new scene starts. In
addition to changes in character constellation, Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 49)
includes time transitions as indicative of scene change.
58
This scene could be again subdivided if the message itself is seen as a separate
scene occurring in Jerusalem, but this does not seem to be the case. Militating against
it is the mention in 19:14 that the message came via letters and the message being
prefaced by thus shall you say to Hezekiah which clearly demarcates it as part of the
scene still in Libnah with the message being dictated to the messengers.
104 chapter two
Table 14
The actual relaying of the message is not narrated. The sixth scene
(2 Kgs 19:1434) again switches settings to Jerusalem, with new char-
acter constellations (leaving behind the Rabshakeh, Sennacherib and
Assyrian messengers), narrating both the reaction of Hezekiah to this
second Assyrian threat and Isaiahs response to the same. The change to
the seventh scene (2 Kgs 19:3536) is signalled by the switch in locale
(from the Jerusalem temple to the Assyrian camp), and character con-
stellations (Sennacherib and his army taking centre stage). This climactic
scene is terse with the angel of Yahweh striking down the Assyrian camp
in 2 Kgs 19:35 and Sennacherib returning to Nineveh in 2 Kgs 19:36.
Second Kings 19:37 narrates the eighth and final scene (or epilogue),
which provides closure to the entire Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.
The scene change is signalled by the spatial shift from the Assyrian camp
to the capital city of Nineveh (and the temple of Nisroch), and by the
changes in character assemblages as Sennacheribs sons, Adrammelech
and Sharezer, murder him and he is succeeded by Esarhaddon.
2. Spatial Structure
The arrangement of scenes in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
also reveals a clear spatial structure. 59 The narrative begins at the
Assyrian camp (2 Kgs 18:14) then moves to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:15).
Subsequently, it again moves to the Assyrian camp (2 Kgs 19:8), then
once again back to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 19:9). This is followed by one
59
On spatial structure see Bar-Efrat, Some Observations, 167. Amit (Reading
Biblical Narratives, 125) also argues about the importance of analyzing spatial features
of the text.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 105
more move back to the Assyrian camp (2 Kgs 19:35). These spatial
indicators are employed structurally to point to new sections, as well
as give wonderful symmetry to this narrative.60 This spatial structure
we have observed results in a symmetrical pattern of A B A B A. Of
course, we have not included the initial scene of Sennacherib invad-
ing and the end scene of his return to Nineveh and subsequent death
there. Surprisingly, these units are spatially parallel as well. The first
implicitly recounts Sennacherib leaving Nineveh (though Nineveh is
not explicitly mentioned) and the last recounts his return to Nineveh.
The spatial structure would then result in a pattern of A B C B C B A.
This artful structure suggests a formal connection between the various
units of the narrative.
3. Plot Structure
A description of the plot structure of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narra-
tive also demonstrates its coherence as a unit.61 The classic description
of plot is that it provides a beginning, middle and end to the action in
a story.62 As Bar-Efrat observes, a typical plot line gradually ascends
to a climax, and then descends to a state of relaxation.63 However,
there are often variations and divergent patterns (such as an unex-
pected turn of events, etc.) that take the plot in new directions.64 The
plot structure in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative does not follow a
typical pattern. The initial complication appears immediately with the
invasion of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:14). There is rising action in the visit
of the Rabshakeh (2 Kgs 18:1737). Suspense is built as deliverance is
prophesied once (2 Kgs 19:67), but is only partially achieved (2 Kgs
19:89), delaying the climax. This is followed by more suspense as the
threat is re-established (2 Kgs 19:913). The deliverance is prophesied
60
Bar-Efrat, Some Observations, 167.
61
Bar-Efrat (ibid., 163) warns that describing plot structure is not always fruitful, as
it often amounts to little more than paraphrasing, but concedes that it is useful when
comparing narratives.
62
As Aristotle submitted in the opening of his Poetics. Though as Fokkelman
(Reading Biblical Narrative, 76) notes, he was actually referring to the structure of a
tragedy. A typical plot sequence has been described by Berlin (Poetics, 102) as consist-
ing of: Abstract, Orientation, Complicating Action, Evaluation, Result or Resolution,
and Coda.
63
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 94.
64
As Bar-Efrat (Some Observations, 65) notes, dramatic structure involves the
building up and relaxation of tension.
106 chapter two
65
As Bar-Efrat (ibid.) notes, A number of biblical narratives reveal a somewhat
different plot structure. Instead of rising to the climax and afterwards descending
quickly to the tranquil end, they ascend to the climax, descend, but then they rise
again to a second climactic point, and only afterwards do they finally fall off to the
equilibrium of the end.
66
E.g., Joshua 78 has a complex plot structure. The problem in the story is the
defeat at Ai. However, this problem is related to a parallel problem of sin in the Israelite
camp. In this complex plot structure, the parallel problem had to be dealt with before
the defeat at Ai could be rectified.
67
Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 4362. Or patterned scene as Amit (Reading
Biblical Narratives, 65) would call it.
68
Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 51.
69
Ibid., 49.
70
Ibid., 47.
71
E.g., Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 73; Clements, Deliverance of Jerusalem, 56; and Honor,
Sennacheribs Invasion, 45.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 107
72
Smelik (Distortion, 76) has drawn attention to 1 Sam 19:1821 and 2 Kgs 1:915
as examples of the sending of messengers multiple times. He writes, We cannot pre-
clude, therefore, that the delivery of two speeches by Rabshakeh and the sending of
a letter by the Assyrian king are similarly examples of a threefold repetition used as
a literary device. Contra Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 73) who finds great problems with
messengers being sent twice.
73
The existence of a parallel plot structure obviously bolsters the integrity of the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 68) notes that an
authors choice of one model over another may contribute to the integrity of the
whole work.
74
Long, Historical Narrative, 405.
75
See Montgomery, Book of Kings, 319; Gray, Kings, 414418; and Walther Zim-
merli, Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel: Eine theologische studie (ATANT
27; Zrich: Zwingli, 1954), 1618. Of course, others have argued that prophetic mate-
rial such as vv. 1314, 22, 28 and 3543 is secondary. See Hans-Christoph Schmitt,
Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen
Prophetie (Gtersloh: Gtersloher, 1972), 4651; and Fritz, Kings, 204. Long (Histori-
cal Narrative, 406) has argued for the unity of this chapter noting that the prophetic
scenes only appear intrusive if it is assumed a priori that this narrative first existed
without its present theological accents. He argues on a structural and stylistic basis
that even v. 22, which is often taken as secondary, is original and a pivot between the
two episodes (216).
108 chapter two
sent into the city (v. 2).76 They demand silver, gold, wives and children
from the local king, Ahab. Ahab agrees to these terms, but before he
can meet the demands the messengers are sent again (v. 5)this time
demanding total surrender.77
A prophet approaches the local king prophesying Gods deliverance
by employing a formulaic expression ( thus says Yahweh;
vv. 13, 14). The prophet promises that God will give
(all this great multitude) into their hands.78 Yet this prophecy is only
partially fulfilled as Ben-Hadad and his cavalry escape (v. 20).79 After
this initial, partial deliverance, the foreign king utters blasphemous
words, asserting that the god of Samaria is only the god of the hills and
not the plains. These words lead a prophet to prophesy again to Ahab,
once again using a formulaic prophetic expression ( thus
says Yahweh; 1 Kgs 20:28). This prophecy quotes the blasphemous
words of the foreign monarch and reiterates the promises of the first
prophecy that ( all this great multitude) will be
given into their hands (1 Kgs 20:28). This time the prophecy is com-
pletely fulfilled as not only are 100,000 soldiers killed by the Israelites,
even those who fled are killed by other means.80 As well, the foreign
monarch, Ben-Hadad, does not escape. Indeed, ( all
this great multitude) was given into their hands.
The Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative seems to follow this patterned
scene.81 All the elements reviewed above are present in the pericope;
however, this version is far more elaborate. Jerusalem is the local city
under threat. Assyria, not Syria, is the hostile foreign nation. The foreign
monarchs initial demands of silver and gold (2 Kgs 18:14) are agreed
to by the local king, but then a further demand of total surrender is
made (2 Kgs 18:31). Messengers are sent to the local king, Hezekiah,
twice (2 Kgs 18:17; 19:9).
76
The nrsv translates into the city while the Hebrew reads ( to the city)
with only the directive indicating their entrance into Samaria.
77
Fritz (Kings, 205) describes the second demands as the further demand of looting
and the unconditional surrender of the city.
78
This hand over formula is a Deuteronomistic expression often found in con-
nection with the wars of conquest in the book of Joshua (Josh 2:24; 6:2; 8:1, 18; 10:8,
19). The fulfilment invariably included the complete defeat of the enemy (e.g., Jericho,
Ai, etc.).
79
By cavalry, that is, .
80
Apparently from a tragic accident due to the structural weakness of a massive wall.
And what a wall the narrator must be imagining if it killed 27,000 people!
81
The narrative in 1 Kings 20 is not the original but rather also follows this pattern.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 109
82
( and he will return to his land).
83
This is an escalation from the messengers initial speech which only claimed
that Hezekiah was going to deceive themnot their God (2 Kgs 18:29). In fact the
messengers initially claimed that Judahs God sent them to conquer Jerusalem (2 Kgs
18:25).
84
Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 53) notes that such extensive use of dialogue
allows a narrative to progress slowly.
110 chapter two
85
As Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 67) has observed, even when the biblical
author uses an established structure, the author feels free to adapt it to the specific
story.
86
As explicitly stated later by a prophet (2 Kgs 20:42).
87
Contra T. Mullen (Crime and Punishment, 245) who describes these chapters
as one of the most complex and confusing narrations of events contained in the
Hebrew Bible.
88
See table below.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 111
Table 15
1. Key Words
The key word or Leitwort is a common feature of the narrative art of the
OT/HB.91 It has been defined as a word or word-root that is repeated
in a meaningful way in a text.92 The repetition of such key words is one
of the most outstanding conventions of biblical literature.93 Such words
often play a structural role and can create cohesion within a unit, and/
or highlight themes.94 In this narrative there are several words which
have unique importance in creating cohesion. These words function to
fasten the narrative together as a unit.
a. to return/withdraw
The verb ( to return/withdraw) is found eight times95 in the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative and functions to bind the narrative
together thematically and to distinguish it as a discrete section within
the Hezekiah macro-narrative.96 The first occurrence is in 2 Kgs 18:14
89
Bar-Efrat, Some Observations, 156.
90
As Watson and Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism, 10) maintain: A smaller literary
unit can have its own tight literary integrity while also being subsumed within a larger
literary unit which possesses its own literary cohesiveness.
91
Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 92.
92
Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung (Berlin:
Schocken, 1936), 211; and Martin Buber, Werker (SzB 2; Munich: Ksel, 1964), 1131.
Cf. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 9294; and Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 212218.
93
Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 92) suggests that Hebrew writers may have
been led to evolve this convention by the very structure of the language, which with
its system of triliteral roots makes the etymological nucleus of both verbs and nouns,
however conjugated and declined, constantly transparent, and probably also by the
idiomatic patterns of Hebrew, which tolerate a much higher degree of repetition than
is common in Western languages.
94
Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 18) notes the use of key words as one consid-
eration for identifying a specific unit. Similarly, Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 94)
notes that Leitwrter are often a unifying device in a narrative. Cf. Bar-Efrat, Nar-
rative Art, 213; and James Muilenburg, A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and
Style, SVT (1953): 97111.
95
Second Kings 18:14, 24; 19:7, 8, 9, 28, 33, 36.
96
This verb is also found four times in 2 Kings 20 in the narrative concerning Heze-
kiahs illness (20:5, 9, 10, 11). In this narrative three of the four occurrences refer to the
turning back of the shadow of the sun dial (20:911) and once in Yahwehs command
to Isaiah to return and speak to Hezekiah (20:5). This verb does not provide narrative
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 113
b. to send
Another key word in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is ( to
send) which is found eight times in this narrative unit, binding the
section together.100 At the beginning, Hezekiah sends to Sennacherib at
direction for this pericope nor does it appear to be thematically significant as the major-
ity of the occurrences are clustered together to describe the sign Hezekiah receives.
97
Buber (Die Schrift, 211) argued that key words often conveyed the essential point
of the narrative directly and established relationships between different stages of a
narrative. Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 213.
98
Here ( to return) is in a different stem (Hiphil imperfect, 2 m sg.) but it must
be remembered that a Leitwort can be the repetition of a word-root and not just the
word itself. See Buber, Werker, 1131. Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 214) asserts that the
key word may also recur with a change in its meaning.
99
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 232.
100
The verb is found in 2 Kgs 18:14, 17, 27; 19:2, 4, 9, 16, 20 (the verb also occurs
once in 2 Kgs 20:12). Long (Historical Narrative, 408) similarly finds the verb
(to send) serving a cohesive function in 1 Kings 20 (where it appears six times) not-
ing that in that chapter it ties the whole together and important for the sense of
structure and development of theme.
114 chapter two
Lachish and entreats him to settle this matter without further military
action (2 Kgs 18:14). Despite this attempt, in 2 Kgs 18:17 Sennacherib
responds by sending his emissaries to Jerusalem to demand total sur-
render. In 2 Kgs 18:27 the Rabshakeh reminds the Jerusalemites that
Sennacherib has sent him to them and Hezekiah recalls this same fact
in 2 Kgs 19:4. In 2 Kgs 19:2 Hezekiah sends his officers to Isaiah the
prophet. In 2 Kgs 19:9 after the rumour has been heard, messengers are
again sent to Jerusalem to demand surrender. In 2 Kgs 19:16 Hezekiah
prays to Yahweh and asserts that Sennacherib has sent his words to
mock the living God. The result is Isaiah sending to Hezekiah, in
response to his prayer (2 Kgs 19:20). The frequent occurrences of this
verb reinforce the cohesion of this narrative unit.101
c. to hear
The high concentration of the verb ( to hear) in the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative is immediately striking, as the verb is found 18
times.102 The many occurrences of this verb suggest it is a key word
bringing attention to a theme of this narrative. The Hezekiah-Sennach-
erib narrative (2 Kgs 18:1319:37) is prefaced by the repetition of the
story of Samarias fall (2 Kgs 18:912), which was already narrated in
the previous chapter (2 Kings 17). This re-narration concludes that the
reason Assyria conquered northern Israel was due to Israels refusal to
101
Interestingly, the key word ( to send) is used to provide smooth transition
between different scenes in our narrative. In scene one, 2 Kgs 18:14 Hezekiah sends
to Sennacherib at Lachish. Sennacherib responds in 2 Kgs 18:17 by sending emissaries
to Jerusalem, providing the setting for scene three. Scene four begins with Hezekiah
sending for Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:2). Scene five ends with messengers once again sent to
Jerusalem (2 Kgs 19:9) providing the setting for scene six. Scene six ends with Isaiah
sending to Hezekiah, setting up the setting for the oracles found in vv. 2134. The
climactic scene of the angelic attack could also be seen as following this pattern of
scene transition as the angel is sent to Jerusalem. However, here the word is not
explicitly mentioned. However, interestingly, this is exactly how the event is worded
in the Chroniclers account of the angelic attack in 2 Chr 32:21 ( and
Yahweh send an angel). For possible theological reasons for this change in wording
see Paul Evans, Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of
the Chroniclers Theology, Bib 85 (2004): 54558.
102
Second Kings 18:12(2x), 26, 28, 31, 32; 19:1, 4(2x), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16(2x), 20, 25.
In fact, of all the occurrences of this verbal root in 2 Kings, more than one third are
found in these two chapters (18 of 49 occurrences). The verb occurs four times in the
following chapter (2 Kgs 20:5, 12, 13, 16). The last three instances occur in the pericope
regarding the visit of the Babylonian envoys. Initially the Babylonian king hears about
Hezekiah (20:12), then Hezekiah listens to the Babylonian envoys (20:13), and finally
Hezekiah is commanded to hear a word from Yahweh (20:16). Right listening may
be a motif of this pericope as well.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 115
103
It is used: of listening to Yahweh (Deut 4:12); of taking actions that will fulfil the
word of Yahweh (2 Kgs 10:6); of listening to Yahwehs word through his prophets (Jer
32:33; 44:16; Ezek 20:39); or to describe a characteristic of people living under Gods
righteous king (Isa 32:3).
104
As previously noted. Cf. Jer 32:33; 44:16; Ezek 20:39.
105
That this expression often denotes listening to the prophetic word is interesting in
light of Rudmans (Rabshakeh, 100110) analysis of Rabshakehs speech as prophecy.
He notes the numerous prophetisms in his speech and suggests the narrator is here
contrasting Sennacherib as false god and Yahweh as true God represented by their
respective prophets.
116 chapter two
d. to trust
Another important key word providing a theme for these chapters is
( to trust). This verb occurs nine times in these two chapters
and nowhere else in the entire book of Kings.106 This narrative clearly
emphasizes the theme of trust. In 2 Kgs 18:5, Hezekiahs regnal rsum,
we are told that he trusted in Yahweh. The Rabshakehs opening
speech to the Judean officials in 2 Kgs 18:19 employs a very rare word
utilizing the same root letters ( )which means confidence
or hope.107 As Bostock has commented, Opening words often reveal
much. Here both the theme of the narrative and the questioning nature
of the Assyrian are made clear.108 In 2 Kgs 18:1921 the Rabshakeh
questions the Judean officers regarding whom they trust. Twice he
demands to know in whom they are trusting (vv. 1920).
The Rabshakeh then suggests that Egypt cannot be trusted, using
the verb twice in v. 21 in reference to Egypt and again in v. 24.109 In
2 Kgs 19:22 the Rabshakeh dismisses the Judeans trust in Yahweh as
misguidedpointing out what from their perspective is Hezekiahs blas-
phemous destruction of altars throughout Judea. Again in 2 Kgs 19:30
they counsel the people to resist Hezekiahs demand that they trust in
Yahweh. The final occurrence of ( to trust) in our narrative is in
2 Kgs 19:10 where the Assyrians address Hezekiah directly. Here they
do not try to prevent him from trusting in Yahweh but acknowledge
that he does indeed trust in him already. The mission this time is
to shake his confidence and suggest that his God will deceive ()
him.110
106
Second Kings 18:5, 19, 20, 21(x2), 22, 24, 30; 19:10. The root also occurs once as
a noun confidence in 2 Kgs 18:19. The only other occurrence is a noun from the
same root found in 1 Kgs 5:5 safety. Actually, in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel the
latter is the only form of the root that is found as well. In the entire narrative of Samuel-
Kings, the actual verb to trust is only found in our chapters (though it also appears
once in Deut 28:52). This calls into question the statement of Childs (Assyrian Crisis,
85) that ( to trust) is a central term in the theology of the Dtr. historian.
107
In the OT/HB, this word is only found here and Qoh 9:4. ( confidence)
also occurs in the Isaian parallel to this verse (Isa 36:4).
108
Bostock, Portrayal of Trust, 52.
109
An opinion shared with the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isa 28:1416; 30:7; 31:15 and
the prophets view of trust in Egypt).
110
Rudman (Rabshakeh, 105) compares this assertion with Jeremiahs caution not
to let false prophets deceive them because Yahweh has not sent them in Jer 29:89
and suggests that this gives a heightened significance to this passage comparing the
Rabshakeh with the prophet Jeremiah. While not suggesting a formal connection
between these passages he points out the similarities between both of their messages.
118 chapter two
e. to deliver
Another theme of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is emphasized
by the use of the key word ( to deliver). This key word occurs
only thirteen times in the book of Kings, eleven of which are within
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.114 This word is prominent in the
speeches of the Rabshakeh in both the putative B1 and B2 accounts. In
2 Kgs 18:29 the Rabshakeh declares that Hezekiah will not ( deliver)
them from Assyrias hand. In 2 Kgs 18:30, 32 the Assyrian orator rebuffs
Hezekiahs assertions that Yahweh will deliver them. In 2 Kgs 18:33,
111
Wrthwein (1. Kn. 172. Kn. 25, 410) notes that Hezekiahs trust is tied to
Judahs survival of the Assyrian attack. So Hobbs, 2 Kings, 24647.
112
Nelson (Anatomy, 41) argues that Yahwehs deliverance of Jerusalem is not
connected to Hezekiahs trust in Yahweh since 2 Kgs 19:34 states the motivation to be
for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David making Hezekiahs fidelity
immaterial at this point. However, Nelson acknowledges that earlier the narrator
declared Hezekiahs trust important but argues that here the evaluative voice of the
narrator . . . and the evaluative voice of God are at odds here (41). However, this seems
unlikely as Hezekiah is at this point equivalent to my servant David as he is the son
of David sitting on his throne. Therefore, there is no real conflict between the narrator
and Gods voice here.
113
The motif of trust in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative has some interesting
parallels with the book of Isaiah. In Proto-Isaiah there are a number of important
occurrences of ( to trust) in the context of either trusting in Egypt or in Yahweh
(( to trust) occurs in Isa 12:2; 26:3, 4; 30:12; 31:1; 32:9, 10, 11; besides the paral-
lels to our passage in Isa 36:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, [noting that the occurrences in Isaiah
32 all have a negative connotation and are often translated as complacent]). In Isa
12:2 and Isa 26:34 the reader is encouraged to trust in Yahweh (either by example
[Isa 12:2 and 26:3] or by direct command [Isa 26:4]). However, in both Isa 30:12 and
Isa 31:1 Judah is castigated for its trust in Egypt. Given the rarity of the use of
(to trust) in the book of Kings and these important occurrences in Proto-Isaiah, we
may detect the influence of the latter upon the former here. Of course the occurrence
of these exact narratives in Isaiah have caused great speculation concerning their
origin. Most have concluded that they are original to Kings, but recently some have
demurred. Cf. Christopher R. Seitz, Zions Final Destiny: The Development of the Book
of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 3639 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 5161; and
idem, Account A, 4757.
114
Second Kgs 17:39; 18:29, 30(2x), 32, 33(2x), 34, 35; 19:11, 12; 20:6.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 119
34, 35 and 2 Kgs 19:11, 12 the Rabshakeh points out that no other gods
have delivered their peoples from Assyrian hegemony. The importance
of this motif for the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is seen in another
occurrence of ( to deliver) in the Hezekiah macro-narrative in
2 Kgs 20:6. Here it is used in reference to Yahwehs deliverance of
Judah from the Assyrian menace. The only other occurrence in the
book of Kings is in 2 Kgs 17:39 which claims that Yahweh would have
delivered Samaria if they would have listened to him. This clearly sets
up the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative and indicates the importance
of this motif for the narrative that follows.115
2. Chiastic Repetition116
There is an interesting pattern found in the use of two of the key words
( to return) and ( to hear). Isaiahs prophecy of 2 Kgs 19:7
contains the prediction that the Assyrian will hear and return. This is
followed by its near immediate fulfilment when the Rabshakeh returns
and hears. The pattern in which these key words appear is chiastic.117
A He shall hear (v. 7)
B He shall return (v. 7)
B Rabshakeh returned (v. 8)
A He heard (v. 8)
However, the pattern does not end here. The narrative continues and
has the Assyrian hear and return again in 2 Kgs 19:9. This creates
another chiasm.
115
As noted above, the events of 2 Kings 17 are repeated again in 2 Kings 18, clearly
functioning as the foil on which to tell this story. The recognition of this key word (
to deliver) in both the former and the latter confirms the importance of this motif
for the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.
116
Danna N. Fewell (Sennacheribs Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18:1319:37,
JSOT 34 [1986]: 7990) argues that the entire narrative is chiastic in structure:
A-Sennacheribs destructive action; B-Sennacheribs verbal offence B-Yahwehs verbal
response A-Yahwehs destructive action.
117
This chiasm appears purposeful and not merely accidental as the order of the
words in the second half is unnatural. Chronologically, the Rabshakeh returned after
he heard, yet here it is first mentioned that he returned, then narrated that he heard.
The word order is reversed to fit chiastically with the first half of the concentric structure.
I consider concentricity to have an ABXBA pattern and chiasmus to have an ABBA
pattern. See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 98 n. 92; and Luis Alonso Schkel, A Manual of
Hebrew Poetics (SB 11; Rome: Editrice pontificio Istituto biblico, 1988), 192.
120 chapter two
A He returned (v. 8)
B He heard (v. 8)
B He heard (v. 9)
A He returned (v. 9)
Taken together these two chiasms form a mirrored sequence where
each element in the symmetrical pattern is mirrored perfectly in the
opposite element. It can be illustrated in this way: ABBAAB118
A Hear (v. 7)
B Return (v. 7)
B Return (v. 8)
A Hear (v. 8)
A Hear (v. 9)
B Return (v. 9)
These two key words are juxtaposed beautifully in this mirror-image
articulation.119 This structure ties in the prophecy with its fulfilment and
also highlights a thematic message of the pericope. As noted above, the
issue of listening is a thematic device running through the narrative.
Here the logic of this theme is presented in our mirrored sequence.
It begins with hearing and ends with the return. That is the chain of
events that results in deliverance. If the Judeans will be hearers, unlike
their Samarian counterparts, then Assyria will withdraw or return.120
It is significant that this chiastic structure cuts across the lines of the
supposed B1 and B2 sources.121
118
Edwin C. Webster (Strophic Patterns in Job 2942, JSOT 30 [1984]: 95109)
finds an analogous structure in the macro-structure of Job 29 where the middle element
serves double-duty as the end of one chiasm and the beginning of a second chiasm
which, like the chiasm in our passage, is not a mirror of the first (e.g., ABCCBA) but
ABCCAB. Cf. the chiasm Pierre Auffret (Yahve Regne: tude structurelle du Psaume
93, ZAW 103 [1991]: 1019) discerns in Psalm 93 that ends in ABBAAB. Cf. Willem
S. Prinsloo, Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men? Bib 76 (1995): 21928.
119
See Fokkelman, (Reading Biblical Narrative, 117).
120
Smelik (Distortion, 77) suggests that the threefold repetition of to hear in
this section is to make the reader suspect that the fulfilment of the oracle [2 Kgs
19:7] is near.
121
There is no clear agreement among scholars who accept the Stade-Childs
hypothesis on the dividing lines of B1 and B2. Some have suggested that B1 breaks
off at the end of v. 7 with B2 beginning in v. 8. So Montgomery, Book of Kings, 486.
Gray (Kings, 66263) has suggested that vv. 89 are both editorial bridges between
B1 and B2 and suggests that B1 originally breaks off at v. 7. The recognition of this
chiastic pattern would militate against these hypotheses. Stade (Miscellen, 156189)
suggested that B1 breaks off at 9a with the verb ( he returned). In this view, the
chiasm would be entirely included in B1. Gray (Kings, 663) concluded, The problem
of the end and beginning respectively of the first and second versions will probably
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 121
3. Envelope122
When an identical group of words appears in the same or nearly the
same form at the beginning and end of a unit, this is an example of
envelope.123 When such repetition is present the resulting framework
usually functions to provide emphasis and sets off the enveloped sec-
tion as a subunit.124
Eliakim, son of Hilkiayahu, who was over the house, and Shebnah the
scribe and Yoah, son of Asaph the recorder (2 Kgs 18:18)
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe
and Yoah, son of Asaph the recorder (2 Kgs 18:37)
This elaborate description of Hezekiahs emissaries is repeated verbatim
at both the opening (2 Kgs 18:18) and at the end (2 Kgs 18:37) of the
scene of negotiations with the Assyrian emissaries.125 This seemingly
pedantic repetition serves as an envelope around this important scene.
It sets apart this scene as an independent unit and serves to empha-
size these events. Its purposeful function in this regard would militate
against the detection of different sources based on diverse spellings of
the names of Hilkiah and Shebna.126
4. Other Repetition127
Another instance of repetition that must be noted is in the first response
of Hezekiah to the news of the Assyrian ambassadors. Hezekiah
never be solved to the satisfaction of all critics. However, the problem is resolved if
the narrative is a literary unity.
122
It is outside the scope of this analysis and purpose of our study to draw atten-
tion to all types of repetition, such as parallelism found in the poetry of the prophet
oracles of 2 Kings 19.
123
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 216. This is also called inclusio, or sandwich structure.
124
Ibid.
125
The only differences being the spelling of two of the names.
126
See our fresh source-critical analysis above.
127
There are other parallel statements which show the artistry of the narrator in
2 Kgs 19:15 ( you are he, the God alone) and 2 Kgs 19:19
( you are Yahweh, God alone). These statements (which are nearly
identical and differ in only one word) frame Hezekiahs prayer to Yahweh. This envelope
frame sets apart this as a clear subunit of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. It also
emphasizes a common theme to the prayerthat of Yahwehs sole claim to deity. This
122 chapter two
expresses his hope that Yahweh has heard these Assyrians who
( mock the living God; 2 Kgs 19:4). After Assyria sends mes-
sengers for a second time, Hezekiah makes certain that his God has
heard their blasphemy by notifying Yahweh that these Assyrians
( mock the living God; 2 Kgs 19:16). This verbatim repetition
clearly recalls Hezekiahs first response and employs a unique name for
Yahweh. In the entire OT/HB, only here (and in the Isaian parallel) is
this exact name ( the living God) found.128 This second use
of the phrase clearly ties in the second response of Hezekiah to the
first. It is significant that this phrase is found in both the putative B1
and B2 accounts.
Probably the most well known repetition in the Hezekiah-Sennach-
erib narrative is the speech of the Rabshakeh (2 Kgs 18:1925), which
is virtually repeated in the second Assyrian threat found in the next
chapter (2 Kgs 19:1013). Indeed much of the content is parallel with the
Rabshakehs speech.129 However, there are small but important changes
in the content. When biblical narrators repeat entire statements such
as this, it is important to note the changes closely.130 Alter has shown
that often when there is such repetition, the changes introduced can
point to an intensification, climactic development, acceleration, of the
actions and attitudes initially represented. . . .131 This is what appears to
be occurring in the second Assyrian threat. This second threat intensifies
the boastful attitude of the Assyrian monarch by adding to his initial
theme is evident in the content of the prayer which juxtaposes Yahwehs majesty as
creator (you made heaven and earth 2 Kgs 19:16) and the destruction of false gods,
who are created by humans (the work of human hands 2 Kgs 19:18). Yet there is a
certain progression to the envelope as the second of the parallel statements is more
explicit than the first, naming Yahweh as God alone. This frame not only emphasizes
a theme, but provides the climax of the prayer.
128
Elsewhere variations on this name are found, such as living God (e.g.,
Deut 5:26) or living God (e.g., Ps 42:3) but never in the same form as here.
129
Cp. talk of Jerusalem being given into Sennacheribs hand in 18:29 and 19:10,
talk of the impotency of the gods to deliver in 18:33 and 19:12, and repetition of five
countries whose gods could not stop Assyria in 18:34 and 19:13.
130
Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 97. See also R. A. Carlson, lie lHoreb, VT
19 (1969): 416439. Of course this highlights the differences in the methodologies of
source and rhetorical criticisms. For the former such repetition is viewed as indicative
of sources, while the latter treats the same as indicative of authorial art. However, as
Watson and Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism, 7) maintain, it is inconsistent for scholars
to acknowledge that repetition in the various forms of parallelism was the basis of
Hebrew poetry, but yet to deny that repetition could be a commonly accepted literary
device in prose.
131
Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 97.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 123
list (2 Kgs 18:34) of nations whose gods were unable to impede Assyr-
ian aggression, four additional countries that Assyria has vanquished
(2 Kgs 19:12). Also, while the Rabshakehs initial speech could still
be called blasphemous (2 Kgs 19:4), there is an intensification of the
blasphemy in the second Assyrian threat. While in the first speech the
Rabshakeh warned that Hezekiah would deceive them (2 Kgs 18:29), in
the second threat, the Assyrians warn that their very God will deceive
them (2 Kgs 19:10).132
The recognition of the function of these parallel statements militates
against the thesis that the second speech of the Assyrians is redundant
or superfluous.133 It does not need to be explained as merely an inde-
pendent source of a variant tradition of the same event that is included
simply because the author had access to it.134 The second speech actually
serves to further the plot development while bringing the complication
to a new high and leaving the reader wondering what God will do in
response.135
5. Characterization
An examination of the characterization of Hezekiah and his three
servants is important in assessing the source-critical conclusions based
on supposed contrasts in their characterization in the various putative
sources. Characterization in biblical narratives is achieved through
both direct characterization (statements offered by a character in the
narrative or by the narrator) and indirect characterization (which is
only revealed through the persons deeds and discourse).136 By paying
attention to both direct and indirect methods we will assess the char-
acterization of Hezekiah, Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah in an attempt to
determine if their presentation in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
speaks against its integrity.
132
As Smelik (Distortion, 81) has argued [the second speech] is not a mere
duplicate . . . the blasphemy of the Assyrian king is aggravated.
133
Leading the interpreter to dub it a doublet.
134
As Cogan (I Kings, 95) implies when he describes ancient stylistics and edito-
rial procedure for employing sources.
135
As Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 100) notes, Variation in repetition is some-
times used to adumbrate not a feature of character but a development of plot. The effect
this produces is thoroughly characteristic of the Bibles narrative art.
136
Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 74.
124 chapter two
a. Hezekiah
Hezekiah is clearly the main character in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative and is the subject both of direct characterization (by both the
narrator and another character) and indirect characterization (through
his direct speech and actions). We will briefly analyze the narrative
looking for both positive and possible negative characterizations of
Hezekiah in order to test arguments of divergent characterization that
have been used to support the Stade-Childs hypothesis.
137
The opposite of guilty by association.
138
As Cohn (2 Kings, 125) points out, these two verbs were never before predicated
of the kings. . . . The assertion that Hezekiah clung to Yahweh (2 Kgs 18:6) may be
explicated as Hezekiah keeping the commandments; however, it does not define exactly
how he kept the commandments, making the statement function as a positive assess-
ment of Hezekiahs person and character rather than a mere reporting of actions.
139
These statements are reported actions which normally would be categorized
as indirect characterization; however, a positive judgment regarding those actions is
explicitly given, making this an instance of direct characterization. As Bar-Efrat (Nar-
rative Art, 53) has observed, Direct characterization often embodies an element of
judgment.
140
For example, Asa is said to have done what right in the eyes of Yahweh as David
his father did (1 Kgs 15:11), but such positive accolades are qualified by the narrators
remark that the high places were not destroyed (2 Kgs 15:14).
141
An important means of indirect characterization is the discourse of the characters
themselves. See Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 116.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 125
142
Cohn, 2 Kings, 133. ( blasphemy) refers to the blasphemous words of the
Rabshakeh. Most translations opt for disgrace (e.g., nrsv, nlt, niv), despite blasphe-
mous being the meaning in every other appearance of the word (cf. Ezek 35:12; Neh
9:18, 26). Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 233) translate contempt but note that
it calls attention to the blasphemies against yhwh hurled by the Rabshakeh.
143
As Cohn (2 Kings, 136) asserts, this prayer is in form and content a masterful
piece. . . .
144
Bostock (Portrayal of Trust) draws interesting parallels between the narrative
situations of the prayers of David and Solomon with the situation of Hezekiahs prayer.
All take place during critical points in the history of the monarchy. Davids prayer in
2 Samuel 7 is prayed in the context of the discussion of building the temple, Solomons
prayer in 1 Kgs 8:2353 takes place at the dedication of the temple, and Hezekiahs
prayer takes place in the temple when it faced a critical threat. Bostock sees the sig-
nificance as the Assyrians have threatened the stability of the Solomonic era; both
king and temple are in peril. Yet YHWH intervenes in direct response to Hezekiahs
prayer at what is arguably another critical point in the history of the monarchy and
cult (65). McKenzie (The Trouble with Kings, 109) also lists several interesting con-
nections between Solomons prayer and Hezekiahs prayers.
145
In biblical narrative, the quality of character indicated through direct means usu-
ally emerges indirectly as well. Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 53. To examine indirect
characterization, we must examine Hezekiahs actions as his appearance etc. is not
narrated.
146
Ibid., 77.
126 chapter two
147
That these actions can be taken two ways is evident by the way the Rabshakeh
views these actions in 2 Kgs 18:22. However, for Dtr these actions are clearly meant
to present Hezekiah in a positive light. As is clearly seen by their association with the
narrators earlier explicit statements in this regard (2 Kgs 18:3).
148
As Hjelm (Jerusalems Rise, 79) points out. The Hebrew phrase is:
.
149
As argued by Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 81).
150
As Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 117) has noted, speech may reflect the occa-
sion more than the speaker, may be more a drawn shutter than an open window.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 127
151
Mullen (Crime and Punishment, 231248) has examined instances where kings
seek to survive a military threat through the offering of temple and palace treasur-
ies. He concludes that the account of the despoliation of the treasuries functioned to
show the king was being punished for failing to remove the high placesthough he
notes Hezekiah as an exception (247). However, his view is difficult to accept since
various kings who despoiled the treasuries are evaluated differently by the narrator,
with some said to have done right in Yahwehs eyes (e.g., Asa). Also the exception of
Hezekiah seems enough not to prove the rule but break it. Naaman has examined
these narratives and emphasizes the different circumstances of these kings with some
being robbed of treasures (Rehoboam, Amaziah, Jehoiachin), some voluntarily hand-
ing over treasure (Asa and Ahaz), and others attempting to avert a threat to Jerusalem
(Jehoash and Hezekiah). Naaman (The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to
Foreign Powers, JSOT 65 [1995]: 3753) criticizes Mullens study, concluding that
it is doubtful that these notices consistently serve as a part of the punishment for
numerous rulers who failed to remove the high places (44, n. 18).
152
Cogan (I Kings, 402) suggests that it was likely viewed negatively by Dtr, though
this is not specifically stated.
153
In the later book of Chronicles, Asa is characterized negatively (2 Chr 16:112)
but interestingly, no explicit connection is made with this negativity and the appro-
priation of temple treasures.
128 chapter two
154
Tadmor and Cogan (Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historio-
graphic Considerations, Bib 60 [1979]: 491508) have argued that the term bribe
bears negative connotations and is used in the Ahaz narrative to criticize the
king (499). However, the same term is used of Asa, despite the fact he is characterized
positively by Dtr.
155
Perhaps our negative view of these actions stems from the ideology of the book of
Chronicles, rather than from the DH. In 2 Chronicles 28 Ahaz is described as appealing
to the king of Assyria for help (2 Chr 28:16), but instead the King of Assyria attacks
Ahaz (2 Chr 28:20). The reason for this turn of events is given in 2 Chr 28:20 For
Ahaz plundered the house of Yahweh and the houses of the king and of the princes,
and gave it to the king of Assyria; but it did not help him. Here the plundering of
the temple is causally linked with the misfortune of Ahaz, clearly making such actions
negative. However, in the ideology of the DH such a negative connotation is not pres-
ent. The problem of the relation of the DH to Chronicles has usually hindered the
interpretation of the latter due to scholars adopting the framework of the DH where
differences in the Chronicles text are isolated and reread within the Deuteronomistic
framework, rather than that provided by Chronicles itself. See John W. Wright, The
Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21, JSOT 60 (1993): 87105 (here, 88). However,
this may be an instance where the reverse is true. Perhaps the influence of millennia
of harmonistic interpretation has subtly influenced interpreters in this regard.
156
Interestingly, while appropriating temple treasuries is never explicitly judged
negatively, when Hezekiah shows the Babylonians the non-temple treasuries of Judah,
Isaiah levels an extremely negative oracle in response, implying that this action was very
wrong. Christopher T. Begg (2 Kings 20:1219 as an Element of the Deuteronomistic
History, CBQ 48 [1986]: 2738) has drawn attention to the fact that Judean kings
who despoil the temple are never explicitly evaluated for their actions nor is anything
directly said about their evoking retribution from Yahweh . . . . [but] Hezekiahs action [of
showing the treasures to the Babylonians] does call for a divine response. . . . (33).
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 129
157
In the present context these actions could be viewed as wise since 2 Kgs 18:7
says in all he did he prospered ( Hiphil imperfect 3ms). In the Hiphil, this word
usually means to act wisely, though it often does seem to mean to have success.
However, perhaps the narrator purposefully uses this terminology to suggest that
Hezekiah acted wisely in all he didincluding the appropriation of the precious met-
als from the temple. Haag (La campagne de Sennachrib contre Jrusalem en 701,
RB 58 [1951]: 348359) has viewed Hezekiahs payment to Sennacherib as a last ditch
attempt at salvation from the human side. He comments, On sait que la confiance
en la Providence nempche pas lhomme de se server des moyens humains dont il
dispose, mais quelle lexige au contraire (355356). So A. H. Konkel, Hezekiah in
Biblical Tradition (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1987), 111.
158
Walter Brueggemann (1 & 2 Kings [Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000], 494)
sees these actions as positive since Hezekiah, good king that he is, wants the occupying
troops of the empire removed. . . . Naaman (Voluntary Servitude) has observed that
in the DH the payment of treasure under threat of siege may have been described in
a non-critical tone (44). Similarly, Long (2 Kings, 205) suggests that such payment
of treasures was merely a strategy to relieve military pressure on Jerusalem and to
preserve Judahs independence and not capitulation.
159
Brueggemann (Kings, 495) suggests the three officials are purposefully meant
to match the three officials of Assyria, though he notes that there is no parity here
because none of the Judean officials have Rab in their titles like two of the Assyrian
contingent.
160
The biblical view of alliances with Egypt can be seen in 2 Kgs 17:4; Hos 12:2; Isa
30:17; 31:1, 3; Jer 37:68; 46:25; Ezek 29:67.
130 chapter two
161
As Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 117) notes, such comments lead us from
inference to the weighing of claims.
162
The Rabshakeh is depicted as a blasphemer and thus is not trustworthy (see Seitz,
Zions Final Destiny, 73). Seitz points out that Hezekiah is never explicitly mentioned
in Isaiahs condemnations of such reliance and argues that Hezekiah did not in fact
have such an alliance (ibid., 78).
163
E.g., Bright, History, 283; Laato, Assyrian Propaganda, 49, 66; Paul-Eugne Dion,
Sennacheribs Expedition to Palestine, EgT 20 (1989): 525; Clements, Deliverance
of Jerusalem, 29; and Gonalves, Lexpdition, 264.
164
Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 72) acknowledges this practice, though she
points out that there are many intermediate gradations.
165
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 90. Cf. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 7172.
166
As Hobbs (2 Kings, 274) notes, putting on sackcloth was a common way of
expressing repentance, remorse, or despair. Gray (Kings, 665) suggests these are the
rites of a fast and imply that Hezekiah is fasting.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 131
167
A request for prayer ( )is often really a request for a message from Yahweh.
Boda (Complaint to Contrition, 186197) has shown this from Jeremiah 42 where
the prayer requested was a prayer to Yahweh asking for a message (192).
168
E.g., 1 Kgs 13:6; Jer 37:3.
169
Just as the actual recounting of Hezekiahs request to Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:34) was not
recorded, but only the message he gave to the officials and priests to bring to Isaiah.
170
Contra Honor (Sennacheribs Invasion, 45) who is perplexed by Hezekiahs fear
at the letter-threat since Isaiah had already delivered a salvation oracle. Hezekiah does
not appear frightened and panic stricken as Honor describes him. Besides which,
even if Hezekiah were said to have been scared by the second threat, this would not
be problematic as characters in biblical narrative often exhibit such changes. A case in
point could be the Elijah narratives where Elijah has a victory over the prophets of Baal
on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18) but then runs in fear at the threats of Jezebel (1 Kgs
19:13). Gideon received a visit from the angel of Yahweh (Judg 6:1126), is clothed
with Yahwehs spirit (Judg 6:34), has many tribes follow him (Judg 6:3435) but still
requires a sign to encourage himnot once but twice (Judg 6:3640). Clearly, it is up
to the author whether a character acts in such and such a way and our preconceived
notions of how characters should act should not restrict the authors freedom.
171
Hezekiahs prayer in the temple need not be evidence for an exilic creation of
this episode out of whole cloth (since prayer is what lives on despite the temples
destruction), it may reflect a preexilic concern to centralize prayer in the temple. See
Knoppers, Prayer and Propaganda, 22954.
172
Analogous to his forbears, David (2 Sam 7:27) and Solomon (1 Kgs 8:2829), the
first to whom he is explicitly compared. Smelik (Distortion, 82) similarly has argued
that in this second trip to the temple Hezekiah no longer needs the prophets interces-
sion now that he has been reassured by Isaiah that Sennacherib will withdraw.
132 chapter two
173
Of course, some (e.g., Fewell Sennacheribs Defeat, 84) argue that through
this request Hezekiahs officials are attempting to prevent an insurrection against
Hezekiah. If this is the case, these actions of Hezekiahs officials would also function
to characterize them positively.
174
It is evident that they communicate clearly to Isaiah, as the narrator does not
bother recording their words to the prophet, but only Hezekiahs orders to the officials
(2 Kgs 19:3).
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 133
dissecting the narrative into discrete sources, and playing them one off
the other, can supposed divergent characterizations be seen.
The above discussion on characterization has shown that Hezekiah
is a complex character who is positively characterized throughout the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Hezekiahs reaction to the second
Assyrian threat shows character progression as he was clearly embold-
ened by the first Isaianic prophecy.175 Significantly, Hezekiahs actions
in utilizing temple treasuries do not necessarily function to character-
ize him negatively and conversely may typify him as heroic. As well,
Eliakim, Shebna and Joah are consistently characterized as faithful
servants of Hezekiah.
175
Similarly, Smelik (King Hezekiah, 119) has noted the possibility of assuming
Hezekiahs prayer was written by another author who had read the earlier account.
But it seems more probable that the change is due to the storys internal development:
since Hezekiah has been reassured earlier by a prophecy, he dares now to approach
God personally. Fewell (Sennacheribs Defeat, 82) suggests that since the second
threat was merely a letter, the situation is less grave and that Hezekiahs response in
this instance shows less panic.
134 chapter two
176
Some have argued that B1 and B2 are independent parallel versions of the same
event. E.g., Gray (Kings, 659661) suggests they are parallel traditions of the same
episode. Montgomery (Book of Kings, 517) describes them as variant traditions of
Isaiahs part in the historical drama.
177
Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 5658.
136 chapter two
Our own fresh examination of the literary divisions of the text based
on source-critical principles came up with sources dissimilar to the
Stade-Childs hypothesis. Following the classical method, we discerned
two major strands (rather than three), with each possessing a literary
history of its own. Significantly, unlike the sources discerned by Stade-
Childs, in both strands we have an account of an Assyrian expedition
of emissaries to Jerusalem. However, this fresh source-critical analysis is
as open to critique as that of the Stade-Childs hypothesis. Chief among
its weaknesses was the foundation built upon the parallel structure. The
recognition of a type scene upon which this narrative is based under-
mines the entire theory of two parallel sources because its foundation
was the structure of the pericope(s). As noted above, this structure
may reflect a type scene rather than a doublet. If this foundation is
undermined, the entire analysis collapses.
Our investigation thus far has served to demonstrate how the appli-
cation of source-critical methodology is fraught with problems, mostly
concerning subjectivity of decisions and consistency in method. Source
criticism is supposed to be an aid to interpretation and is not an end in
itself.178 In fact, if a simpler explanation exists, which also does better
justice to the text, a source-critical hypothesis may be unnecessary.
In the end, the Stade-Childs hypothesis is unconvincing and unnec-
essary. Rather than being helpful and enabling greater understanding
of the narrative, the Stade-Childs hypothesis has served to obscure the
meaning of the same. As noted in our introduction, this hypothesis has
been the basis for purely conjectural hypotheses of two campaigns by
Sennacherib into the Levant.179 It has also set up the false dichotomy that
the putative Account A and the putative Account B are not compatible.180
Rather than aid in a clearer appreciation of the pericope, it has divided
the narrative into its imagined parts and demanded interpretation be
178
As Habel (Literary Criticism, 7) states, The value of the hypothesis depends
upon . . . the contribution the theory makes to a richer appreciation of the document
under examination.
179
Neither the extant biblical text, nor epigraphic or archaeological evidence sug-
gests a second campaign.
180
This can be seen in the introduction to Childs Assyrian Crisis where he notes how
the account of Sennacheribs invasion is found in many places in the OT/HB. Before
even doing a source-critical analysis (which he provides in chapter 3), he writes, The
incident is first recounted in II Kings 18.1316. It appears again in II Kings 18.1719.37
(Assyrian Crisis, 11). Thus, the source-critical delineations are stated as fact from the
start of the book, before any argumentation for the theory has begun. If we begin with
the assumption of sources, it is no wonder we find sources in the end.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 137
based on its constituent elements rather than first really wrestling with
the narrative as it stands. Alternatively, our study has suggested that
reading the narrative as a literary whole is not only possible but is to
be preferred to a reading committed to the Stade-Childs hypothesis.181
To such a reading we now turn.
181
This is not to decide completely against the possibility that the writer had some
source(s) of the 701 b.c.e. invasion. It is a priori not unlikely that he did. What this
study has made clear is that the existence of these sources has not been demonstrated
to any degree of probability. If sources did exist, they are ultimately unverifiable and
have not been successfully isolated in a way that permits basing literary and historical
readings on putative sections of the narrative.
CHAPTER THREE
Our study thus far has demonstrated problems with a standard source-
critical approach to the text. Through our independent source-critical
analysis, which has carefully adhered to the rules of the discipline, and
through our rhetorical analysis it has been seen that there is substantial
evidence that 2 Kings 1819 is a narrative with integrity. If our con-
clusions are legitimate and the text is not describing the same event
three times (in A, B1 and B2), and the partially parallel structure is not
indicative of sources, but intends to indicate sequential progression of
the narrative, the text will be read quite differently. A fresh reading
without prior commitment to the Stade-Childs hypothesis is necessary
if the text is to be allowed to speak for itself. This new assessment will
take into account the intended claims of the text as perceived through
an analysis that does not presume incoherence at the outset.
I. A Close Reading
1
Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 92) maintained that the law code was central to
the history and permeated the entire work of Dtr, writing, Dtr. has centred his history
on the theme of worship of God as required by the law . . . for he is interested . . . in the
various possible forms of deviation from this worship which could be construed as
apostasy and how these were realised [sic] in history. This concern is seen throughout
140 chapter three
The longer description of Samarias fate (2 Kings 17) that preceded the
Hezekiah macro-narrative sets the stage for the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative. The close relationship of the Hezekiah macro-narrative and
2 Kings 17 can be seen in the intertextual link between the two narra-
tives in Hezekiahs regnal rsum. In 2 Kgs 18:8 the narrator notes that
Hezekiah smote ( )the Philistines from watchtower to fortified city,
a phrase which is only found in one other place in the entire Bible
2 Kgs 17:9. However, in the latter reference it is used in reference to
the actions of northern Israel (who built high places from watchtower
to fortified city).2
In 2 Kings 17, it is suggested that the king of Samaria both rebelled
against Assyria and made an alliance with Egypt (2 Kgs 17:4). These
details find an echo in the Hezekiah narratives as the Rabshakeh sug-
gests that Hezekiah also has such an alliance with Egypt (2 Kgs 18:21)
and the narrator tells us plainly that Hezekiah has rebelled against the
Assyrians (2 Kgs 18:7).3 This prompts the reader to ask: if in 2 Kings
17, such actions led to the destruction of Samaria, to what will such
actions lead in Hezekiahs Judah? The juxtaposition of the descrip-
tion of the political circumstances leading to Samarias downfall and
Hezekiahs analogous political actions intimates some narrative tension.
The explicit reasons that Israel was defeated by Assyria are chronicled
in 2 Kgs 17:718 which, when contrasted with the positive portrayal
in Hezekiahs regnal rsum, do not seem applicable to Judah. How-
ever, Dtr explicitly brings Judah into the picture by stating, none was
the book of Kings and is clearly the standard of judgment by which the Israelite and
Judean monarchs are evaluated. In the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative Hezekiah is
clearly portrayed as one who avoided such apostasy and took action against deviant
forms of worship (2 Kgs 18:16). Clearly this presentation of Hezekiah is not fortuitously
congruent with Dtrs ideology. Whether this presentation of Hezekiah as reformer was
already in his sources or not, Dtr doubtless shaped it to present Hezekiah as an exemplar
of a law abiding and law enforcing Davidic monarch. Contrary to Noth, it should be
noted that Dietrich has argued that the law code (and legal sayings, paranesis on law
etc.) was added at the latest stage in the formation of the DH. See Dietrich, Prophetie
und Geschichte, 44, 147. Though Dietrich sees all three redactions (DtrG, DtrP, DtrN)
as Deuteronomistic since they are governed by the spirit of the lawthough by law
he means an unwritten law of Yahwehs claim upon Israel (147).
2
This suggests either conscious redactional efforts to connect the Hezekiah
macro-narrative with what went before, or the purposeful work of the author of both
narratives.
3
It should be noted that the text does not explicitly (dis)credit Hezekiah with having
such an alliance with Egypt. Though the approach of the Cushite force mentioned in
2 Kgs 19:9 implies that this was the case.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 141
left, only the tribe of Judah alone. Judah also did not keep Yahwehs
commandments, but walked in the customs Israel had done (2 Kgs
17:18b19).4 Through this comment Dtr appears to consider the sins of
Israel and the sins of Judah analogous, which may create expectations
for the next narrative to end similarly for Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 17:20).
However, 2 Kgs 17:2122 may alleviate this tension as the sin of
abandoning the house of David and following the sins of Jeroboam
are highlighted as the foremost sin of Israelsins of which Judah is
not guilty. Yet, this tension is explicitly brought to the fore within the
Hezekiah narrative itself as 2 Kgs 18:912 re-narrates how Shalmaneser
conquered Samaria and deported its population. This re-narration
functions to highlight a potential problem with Hezekiahs reign and
provide the beginning of the complication that propels the story.5 This
raises the question: how will Assyria respond to Judahs defiance of its
lordship? The dramatic tension is clear.
A. Sennacherib Invades
The tension becomes action in v. 13 as the king of Assyria attacks
Hezekiahs Judah. Initially it seems that Hezekiahs fate will be little
different from that of Hosheas. Second Kings 18:13 describes Sennach-
eribs invasion: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sen-
nacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and
captured them. Here the text attributes tremendous military success
to the Assyrian campaign as Sennacherib is said to have seized ()
all the fortified cities. The verb denotes to seize, take possession
4
Of course many have viewed this verse as a late addition to 2 Kings 17. E.g., Marc
Zvi Brettler (Ideology, History and Theology in 2 Kings 17:723, VT 39 [1989]:
268282) views 2 Kgs 17:18b20 as a reference to Judahs exile, bringing the chapter
up to date (270). Brettler suggests this addition was added in the exile and that this
exilic editor smoothed his addition by earlier anticipatory glosses in 8b and 13 (282).
However, recognition that this was written by an exilic editor fits with this monographs
suggestions regarding Dtrs role as true author. Brettlers suggestion that anticipatory
glosses earlier in the narrative were added to smooth this redactional element seems
to be an unnecessary hypothesis if one simply accepts that Dtr was free to make such
additions to his sources wherever he felt the need.
5
It is significant that the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative immediately follows a
summary passage widely acknowledged to be a Dtr composition about the fate of the
northern kingdom (2 Kings 17) that is again summarized within the narrative itself
(2 Kgs 18:912). This fact, along with the unusual length of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative, may reflect its importance in the scheme of the DH. Contrary to Noth
(Deuteronomistic History, 73) who argued that the Hezekiah narrative is nothing but
a transitory interlude.
142 chapter three
6
, HALOT 4:779.
7
As is well known, Sennacherib himself does not even claim to have conquered
Jerusalem.
8
E.g., 2 Chr 17:2; 19:5; 33:14.
9
As Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 81) writes, Jerusalem is not among
all the fortified cities of Judah; it stands in a category of its own. Contra August H.
Konkel (The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah, VT 43 [1993]:
462482) who refers (without explanation) to 2 Kgs 18:1416 as the account of the
destruction of Jerusalem (478).
10
Montgomery (Book of Kings, 484) has argued that this is a technical expression
for rebellion, pointing out that Akkadian uses the same root in this manner, but
provides no instances of such Akkadian use.
11
Also identical is Pharaohs short-lived penitent speech in Ex 10:17.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 143
B. Paying Tribute
As noted, the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative presents Hezekiah as
paying tribute before any military action against Jerusalem. Therefore, in
this presentation of the events, it can appear confusing as to why Assyr-
ian emissaries are still sent to Jerusalem after Hezekiahs capitulation.15
But a close reading of the narrative reveals a previously unnoticed causal
link. The king of Assyria made his exorbitant demand on Hezekiah
three hundred talents of sliver and thirty talents of gold. As is well
known, the tribute demanded by Sennacherib is recorded differently
in the Assyrian annals. In the latter we are given the identical number
for the goldthirty talentsbut a much larger number of talents for
the silvereight hundred talents. This discrepancy has been explained
12
Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 81) suggests that the character of Hezekiah
actually is confessing his sin against Yahweh for rebelling against his suzerain (Sen-
nacherib). He supports this conjecture by the fact that his actions directly led to the
removal of all the silver treasures of the temple and to its physical downgrading . . . which
are acts that convey dishonor of the temple. . . . However, this reasoning seems prob-
lematic. First, Hezekiahs rebellion against Sennacherib seems already approved of in
2 Kgs 18:7 which puts it in the context of Yahwehs being with him and making him
prosper. Secondly, Hezekiah here is confessing sin before looting the temple to pay
tribute. If Hezekiah really saw his rebellion against Assyria as sin against Yahweh, why
would he continue to sin against Yahweh as his penance to said sin? This confession
is better read as ironic.
13
By irony I mean a device an author uses to convey his meaning but can actually
have the effect of casting doubt upon the very point of view which seems to be taken
by the narrator. . . . See McConville, Narrative and Meaning, 32, n. 8.
14
There may be a word-play here with which, of course, can mean repent.
Hezekiah commands Sennacherib to ( imperative) repent (18:14) promising he
will forgive (18:14). For this penitential meaning of see 1 Kgs 8:33, 48; Jer
3:7, 4:1. See Joon 177b.
15
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 14) notes that some theories which tried to connect A and
B rested upon providing a motivation for Sennacheribs subsequent attitude [continuing
aggression despite tribute paid] which has no support in the text itself. For example,
Childs disparages suggestions of Sennacheribs treachery since the text does not speak
of it explicitly. However, our suggestion here has explicit textual support.
144 chapter three
16
As previously noted, this discrepancy is often accounted for by suggestions that
the OT/HB used heavy talents and the Assyrian annals used light talents (see Rogers,
Babylonia and Assyria, 2:371). However, this does not explain why the gold talents
agree precisely. Gray (Kings, 612) suggests that the 300 talents were the exact amount
available in stamped ingots and that the other 500 mentioned by Sennacherib was
obtained by despoiling the temple. Jones (Kings, 565) also notes the possibility that the
OT takes the figure paid from the temple and palace treasury without reckoning the
amount taken from the palace, which has been included in the Assyrian figure.
17
E.g., 1 Kgs 14:2526 (Shishak); 15:1621 (Baasha); 2 Kgs 12:1819 (Hazael); 16:5,
79 (Pekah and Rezin); 14:14 (Jehoash); 24:13; 25:1317 (Nebuchadnezzar).
18
After describing the carvings, the text reads
( 1 Kgs 6:32b). This seems to explicitly state that it was only the carvings
on the door which were overlaid with gold. In 1 Kgs 7:50 the to the
are described as gold. However, these are described as doors of the
house for/to the temple (1 Kgs 7:50) rather than the doors of the temple
(2 Kgs 18:16). This suggests that these were separate doors from those described in
2 Kgs 18:16. Reading 1 Kgs 7:50 as the doors of the house, that is, the temple ignores
the attached to . Nrsv translates as doors of the nave of the temple. Regard-
ing the ( doorposts) mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:16, Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings,
229) note that the construction details of the temple entrances contained in 1 Kgs 6
do not include these items.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 145
19
While our focus here is on the despoliation of the temple, the larger context of the
DH shows various instances of treasure transference in moments of international crisis.
Rehoboam (1 Kings 14), Asa (1 Kings 15), Jehoash (2 Kings 12), Amaziah (2 Kings 14),
Ahaz (2 Kings 16), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18), Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:35), Jehoiachin (2 Kgs
24:13), and Zedekiah (2 Kgs 25:1317) all either paid out, bribed or were robbed of
treasures in situations of military duress. Hjelm (Jerusalems Rise) detects a meaningful
compositional pattern for the DH in relation to these instances of treasure transfer-
ence, detecting a quasi-chaistic structure of ABCABCA with Rehoboam, Amaziah
and Zedekiah robbed of treasures (A); Asa and Ahaz bribing overlords to protect
them against minor enemies (B) and Jehoash and Hezekiah paying their enemies (C)
(p. 43 n. 59). However, she fails to include Jehoiakims payment to Pharaoh Neco
(2 Kgs 23:35) and Nebuchadnezzar robbing Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:13) which would
spoil her pattern (creating a meaningless ABCABCCAA pattern).
20
As Cogan (I Kings, 399) writes regarding That is, what had not been
handed over to Shishak. . . . Similarly, Montgomery (Book of Kings, 277) states, The
limitation on the treasures harks back to 1426.
146 chapter three
21
HALOT defines in the niphal as to be found or to be discovered. See
, HALOT 2:620. Its semantic distinctive is more than simply to exist; i.e., the
money that existed in the temple. Sometimes it seems to mean what remained. An
example is 1 Sam 13:16, which notes that only 600 soldiers remained ( )with
Saul (after 1 Sam 13:2 noted that there were originally 2000 with him before his rash
sacrifice). Similarly, in Judg 20:48 the word clearly denotes what remained referring
to Israel killing the Benjaminites who remained ( ;)that is, those not yet killed.
Importantly, note the identical expression ( )in 2 Kgs 19:4 where it clearly denotes
what remains or is left over (in this context it is only Jerusalem that is left of the
Judean fortified cities). Cf. Deut 20:11.
22
In fact, in this verse the search for precious metals extended to the Kings house
as well. This situation is repeated in our next example as well (2 Kgs 16:8).
23
Hjelm (Jerusalems Rise) thinks the shift from gold and silver to silver and
gold in the Hezekiah narrative is significant in showing the depletion of wealth in
Jerusalem. She writes, When there is wealth in the country gold comes first (p. 15
n. 55). However, she fails to note that gold is actually not mentioned, but at most is
only implied in the mention of the doorposts Hezekiah overlaid. Moreover, the order
of the listing of these precious metals varies in despoliation notices in the DH and
does not show a conscious progression linked to the order these metals are listed. Cp.
1 Kgs 15:18 silver and gold; 2 Kgs 14:14 gold and silver; 2 Kgs 16:8 silver and
gold. Hjelm inaccurately refers to Rehoboam giving away both gold and silver in
1 Kgs 14:26 and Jehoash giving away both gold and silver in 2 Kgs 12:19 when only
gold is mentioned and silver is not referred to in either account (ibid., 1415).
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 147
24
Noted in Montgomery, Book of Kings, 485. So A. Klostermann, Die Bcher Samu-
elis und der Knige (Munich: Beck, 1887).
25
This is, of course, a hapax legomenon. It seems to be related to the meaning sup-
port. See BDB, 52. Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 229) note that these particular items
are not referred to in earlier references to the temple entrance. It is actually ambigu-
ous in 2 Kgs 18:16 whether it is the doors themselves which Hezekiah overlaid, or the
doorposts only. The latter may be a better understanding of the clause.
26
Moshe Elat (Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 100539 b.c. [Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik and Israel Exploration Society, 1977], 63) has suggested that Hezekiah
actually sent the doors themselves to Sennacherib, noting that Assyrian tribute lists
place high value upon wooden objects.
27
Besides which, the overlaying of everything in the temple with gold appears to
be a purposeful embellishment to glorify the Solomonic age. In 1 Kgs 6:22, the entire
temple is said to have been overlaid with gold. If this embellishment was made by the
same author as this narrative, he could be assuming its narrative existence; however,
most scholars view these gold overlay sections as expansions. E.g., Simon J. De Vries
(1 Kings [WBC 12; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985], 96) discerns eight expansions into the
narrative concerning overlaying with gold. He writes, Once this material is removed,
it will be seen that Jerusalem the Golden is a figment of someones imagination.
Similarly, Montgomery (Book of Kings, 223) viewed these attributions of gold as a
late exaggeration indeed. While Fritz (Kings, 73) views these texts as secondary addi-
tions, he suggests that the overlaying of the doors of the shrine with gold seems, in
contrast, to have been an original part of the description.
28
See L. W. King, ed., Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria,
b.c. 860825 (London: Longmans, 1915).
148 chapter three
29
is used to describe overlaying with bronze (Ex 27:2, 6; 36:38; 38:2, 6; 2 Chr
4:9; 9:17). The same verb is described as overlaying with wood (1 Kgs 6:15), cypress
wood (1 Kgs 6:15b) cedar wood (1 Kgs 6:20b), and with precious stones (2 Chr 3:6)
though it is most commonly associated with gold (Ex 25:11, 13, 24, 28; 26:29, 37; 30:3,
5; 37:2, 4, 11, 15, 26, 28; 1 Kgs 6:20, 21, 22, 28, 30, 35; 10:18; 2 Chr 34:10). The only
instance (outside of 2 Kgs 18:16) where this verb is used without an explicit direct
object is Ex 38:28. However, in Exodus 38, the metal in question is indicated, though
not entirely explicitly. Ex 38:28, Of the thousand seven hundred seventy-five he made
hooks for the pillars, and overlaid ( )their tops and made bands for them (Ex
38:28). The thousand seven hundred seventy-five appears to be a reference to the
silver collected in freewill offerings referred to in Ex 38:25 (The silver from those of the
congregation . . . was one hundred talents and one thousand seven hundred seventy-five
shekels). See John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 2; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 489. Thus
by referring to the thousand seven hundred seventy-five it clearly refers to silver as
what was used to overlay the tops (of the pillars) was silver. See Cornelis Houtman
(Exodus [3 vols.; Kampen: Nertherlands: Kok, 1996], 3:593) who understands Ex 38:28
as giving detailed information . . . about the use of the silver. So Noth, Exodus (OTL;
London: SCM Press, 1962), 279.
30
This oddity was, of course, used to bolster the supposition of variant sources.
31
In fact, 1 Kgs 10:21 says, silver was not considered anything in Solomons days.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 149
collecting silver for himself ().32 So Hezekiahs giving up the silver may
not have the same negative consequences as the gold, as only gold is
exclusively referred to in the construction of the temple in 1 Kings 67.
Since silver is only mentioned in the construction of the kings palace,
it is interesting to note that the treasures given to Sennacherib in 2 Kgs
18:16 do not come from the temple only, but from the kings house
as well. Hezekiah does not view the silver as his possession (along the
lines of Deut 17:17s old possessive ), but readily sacrifices it to save
his people. I would suggest that this omission of gold in Hezekiahs
tribute may have two purposes narratively: 1) to explain the visit of
the Assyrian emissaries (see below); and 2) to distinguish Hezekiah
from his evil forbears.33
Regarding the payment of the gold, it is important to note the func-
tion of the temporal marker ( at that time) in the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative (2 Kgs 18:16).34 While the payment of silver is
described as being administered without delay, the payment of the
doors or doorposts is separated from these actions by this temporal
marker.35 Montgomery had argued that this temporal marker was a
sign that this statement came from an archival source.36 Others have
32
Beginning in 1 Kgs 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomons shortcom-
ings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no
lessexplicitly forbidden in Deut 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deut
17:17), this culminates in the description of his many wives (forbidden in Deut 17:17).
This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has
been noted by many. See Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1987), 6667; and Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings (ed. David W. Cotter; Collegeville,
Minn.: Liturgical, 1996), 1378. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g.,
Long (1 Kings, 120) notes this sections intention as to glorify Solomon and does not
note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously,
Martin J. Mulder (1 Kings [HCOT; trans. John Vriend; Leuven; Belgium: Peeters,
1999], 542) notes the Deut 17:17 connection only to support the idea that Egypt was
famous for its horses.
33
A similar effort at lionizing Hezekiah may be seen in the omission of reference to
temple treasures in 2 Kings 19. Begg has argued that this lack of reference to the temple
treasures when Hezekiah entertains the Babylonians (and in Isaiahs corresponding
prophecy in the same chapter) was out of respect for Hezekiah where such a king
would not have exposed the temple treasures to foreign gaze and so have been the
occasion for an announcement of their eventual loss to foreigners. See Begg, Element
of the Deuteronomistic History, 32.
34
See Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 19.
35
Note the use of the waw-consecutive and Hezekiah took ( )immediately fol-
lowing the statement regarding the demands made by Sennacherib. The payment of
silver is described as following the demand with no delay.
36
Montgomery, Book of Kings, 485; and idem, Archival Data, 64652.
150 chapter three
37
Hobbs, 2 Kings, 255.
38
See Hayim Tadmor and Cogan, Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser.
39
Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 19. Of course, there is a wide variety of usage
of the expression ( at that time). E.g., It can refer to a definite time in the
past: Judg 11:26 ( at that time) Israel lived in Heshbon . . . three hundred
years; or a time simultaneous with another: Judg 3:29 So Edom revolted . . . till this
day, and Libnah revolted ( at that time).
40
As noted above (p. 107) the new paragraph is governed by a new waw-consecutive
chain of imperfects.
41
E.g., 1 Kgs 14:2526 [Shishak]; 2 Kgs 12:1819 [Hazael].
42
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 71) points out that when this expression stands at the
head of a sentence, [it] often indicates a break in the continuity of events caused by
some new factor. He suggests that the events of v. 16 were originally separate from
vv. 1315 but were linked together through this phrase. Here I am suggesting that this
phrase suggests that this event was not simultaneous with the events in v. 1315.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 151
43
Of course, Sennacherib claims that Hezekiah did indeed send the required gold,
though this occurs after Sennacheribs return to Assyria. See Sennacheribs Siege of
Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:303).
44
Bostock (Portrayal of Trust, 50) has suggested reading the payment of tribute
followed by further military aggression by Sennacherib in relation to YHWHs pur-
poses whereby the tribute was offered like the bait in a trap since divine planning
necessitated a way of getting Sennacherib to confront Hezekiah, so that the Assyrian
king might be humiliated in recompense for his arrogance and his army might be
decimated. In other words, Hezekiah paid the tribute to get Sennacherib to leave,
but Yahweh intended for the tribute to get Sennacherib to further attack. Of course,
this suggestion lies outside the realm of historical investigation but is in keeping with
Bostocks narrative-theological reading of the narrative.
45
, HALOT 1.311.
152 chapter three
clearly does not fit this context; however, the second and third are
distinct possibilities.
At times, the lexical possibilities of a word are limited when found in
combination with particular words. However, when is in combina-
tion with we are not actually in a better position to decide which
of the options is preferable. The only places where the two words are
found in combination are: 1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 6:14; 2 Kgs 18:17; Isa 36:2;
and 2 Chr 9:1.46 Therefore, these references in reality only describe
three different narratives: the visit of the Queen of Sheba; the Aramean
attempt to seize Elisha; and the visit of the Assyrian emissaries. We
shall examine them in canonical order.
46
Isaiah 36:2 is merely a parallel to 2 Kgs 18:17 and 2 Chr 9:1 parallels 1 Kgs 10:2.
47
Interestingly, the LXX translates as in both 2 Kgs 18:17
and in 1 Kgs 10:2, suggesting that the translator either understood that the queen of
Sheba brought a great army or Rabshakeh came for the great wealth/retinue of Jeru-
salem. There is also evidence that the LXX translator may have meant the great wealth
was Jerusalems. The phrase in question reads
. Note that often indicates the purpose of the
sending by w. acc. See , BDAG 120121. The LXX may indeed mean
great wealth here as means wealth in NT usage as well (cf. Rev 18:3).
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 153
Israel as to where the Aramean camp was located. In response to this the
king of Aram sends a ( 2 Kgs 6:14) to ( encircle) the city of
Dothan. Obviously, in this context cannot mean great retinue
but must indicate a military force. Here the translation heavy force/
army seems adequate. But what is the extent of this military force? It
appears that it was sufficient to surround the city of Dothan. However,
in the narrative this heavy force is led by Elisha away from Dothan
and into the city of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:1920). This military contingent
appears small enough to enter the city and, once there, be destroyed
easily by the inhabitants, for once he sees this inside the city,
Israels king asks, Father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them? (2 Kgs
6:21). Therefore, it would appear from the context in 2 Kings 6 that
is used to denote a small military force appropriate for attacking a
small city in order to capture an individual but inappropriate for the
task of defeating a larger city like Samariadespite the fact they suc-
cessfully entered through the city walls. Second Kings 6:23 concludes
this pericope by stating that the bands from Aram ( ) stopped
raiding the land of Israel. This verse is clearly referring to such small
military forces like as ( bands) which raided Israels
territory periodically.
If the meaning of in 2 Kgs 18:17 approximates that of 2 Kgs
6:14 then it would appear to be a military contingent accompanying
these important Assyrian officials, sufficient to protect the emissaries
but too small to be a real threat (even if allowed inside the city walls).
In fact, the return of the Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 19:9 is significant in this
regard. If the is merely the accompanying military contingent
of the Assyrian emissaries, it can be assumed that it too returned to
Sennacherib at Libnah along with the emissaries. In fact, this is exactly
how some have understood the narrative in the past. In his examina-
tion of the second Assyrian threat enumerated in 2 Kings 19, Honor
assumes that the military contingent has left with the Assyrian ambas-
sadors. He notes, It is hard to understand how Sennacherib could have
expected to persuade the Jews [sic] to surrender Jerusalem by means of
a letter, when his personal ambassadors had failed to do so by means
of a display of force.48 Regarding the military contingent itself, Honor
notes that some scholars do not believe that these verses refer to the
blockade mentioned in the Assyrian Annals and that they interpret the
48
Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 75.
154 chapter three
49
Ibid., 74, n. 40.
50
Since Hezekiah has failed to supply the required monies to the Assyrians, the
translation of as wealth is a possibility since Hezekiah is the one with the wealth
the Assyrians have come for. The preposition in this instance is best translated as
with, but whether it refers to Hezekiah or the Assyrian entourage could be debated.
At this point a syntactical chart will be useful in illustrating the issue.
The verse initially follows normal Hebrew word order with 1) verb 2) subject 3) direct
object. On purely syntactical grounds, the split indirect object creates some ambiguity
as Jerusalem is separated from Hezekiah by a prepositional phrase. One would expect
perhaps a directive to be appended to Jerusalem in this instance, but such is not the
case. Curiously, the noun in this instance appears to be in the construct state
though BDB (229) suggests that in this instance is a variant of .
If the construct
is to indicate that it is attached to what follows rather than what precedes it, then Jeru-
salem is to be associated with the . However, this would make a broken construct
chain, something quite rare in biblical Hebrew. See GKC 130; David N. Freedman,
The Broken Construct Chain, in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1980), 339341; repr. from Bib 53 (1972): 53436. Interestingly, a broken
construct chain appears in 2 Kgs 18:24. The phrase is translated as
one captain of the servants of my lord. While Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 232) label
this a syntactic aberration hardly permissible in BH this aberration strengthens the
possibility that is in construct with heredespite the intervening adjective.
would then refer to Jerusalems wealth. I have explored this translation pos-
sibility in greater detail in my Sennacheribs 701 Invasion into Judah: What Saith the
Scriptures? in The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies
(ed. Patricia G. Kirkpatrick and Timothy Goltz; LHBOTS [JSOTSup] 489; London: T&T
Clark, 2008), 5777. However, associating the with Hezekiah in this instance
requires that be able to function with the relative force more akin to than by
itself. Such a function for appears to be without precedent in the OT/HB, making
this translation possibility unlikely.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 155
51
So nrsv, etc.
52
E.g., Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 223.
53
The connotation of actually entering is seen in 2 Kgs 19:32 and 33 where
clearly indicates entry rather than approach. Other passages which employ
twice in one verse all seem to be indicating the entrance into something, and not just
the approach of the subject. Cf. Gen 7:16; 1 Kgs 10:12 The LXX translator may have
understood it as entering Jerusalem, as he translated it as .
Interestingly, BDAG notes that when is used with with accusative of place
(in this instance, Jerusalem) it means into. See , BDAG 393395. Though
LEH-2 notes that in Septuagint usage, the same expression can mean either into or
simply to arrive at. See , LEH-2, n.p.
54
Millar Burrows (The Conduit of the Upper Pool, ZAW 70 [1958]: 221227)
examined various suggestions, concluding that it was located on the eastern hill of
Jerusalem as it reaches the Kidron Valley. Bright (History, 283) argued that Isaiah 22:11
suggests that the pool was within the city walls. The word for highway here ()
often connotes a place within Jerusalem (Isa 7:3, 1 Chr 26:16, 18) and not a highway
outside of the city. Gray (Kings, 680) notes the possibility that Isa 7:3 implies that
Ahazs meeting with Isaiah was where the conduit flowed into the Upper Pool, which
must have been inside the city. So Jan J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament:
Researches and Theories (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 1; Leiden: Brill,
1952), 334. Of course, the location of the pool is disputed. Benjamin Mazar (Encyclo-
pedia Miqrait [3 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 195082], 3.824, 82728) argued for
a location outside the city walls, where there was room for the military force which
accompanied the Rabshakeh. Of course, with our reading of the narrative, such a large
space is not required. Cf. D. Bahat, The Fullers Field and the Conduit of the Upper
Pool, EI 20 (1989): 253255.
156 chapter three
55
As Ernest J. Revell (The Designation of the Individual [CBET 14; Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1996], 131) observes, this disregard of Hezekiahs status as king adds a sig-
nificant psychological element to his argument. . . .
56
Bostock, Portrayal of Trust, 52.
57
Contra Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 228) and our fresh source-critical analysis
above. In fact, the different designations of Hezekiah in this narrative are often justified
by the context. Second Kings 18:1 refers to him simply as Hezekiah, which seems appro-
priate since he then described as beginning to reign. The narrator refers to Hezekiah
as king in the context of other kings (2 Kgs 18:9, 13, 17), but refers to him simply as
Hezekiah when he plunders the treasuries (2 Kgs 18:1516) but King Hezekiah when
referring to his previous overlaying of the doors of the temple (2 Kgs 18:16), implying
that he acted like a king in one instance but not the other. The Rabshakeh never refers
to Hezekiahs kingship (2 Kgs 18:19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32) for reasons of intimidation and
disrespect. As a sign of humility Hezekiah refers to himself without reference to his
kingship when addressing Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:3). In the second message of the Assyrian
emissaries, they surprisingly refer to Hezekiah as King (2 Kgs 19:10). This is logical in
the context as this second message is focused on Hezekiah, no longer accusing him of
deception but warning him of Yahwehs deception (also note the focus on the kings
of the conquered lands rather than the gods [2 Kgs 19:13]). This Assyrian reference
to Hezekiah as king comes as even more of a surprise since the narrator in the verse
before (2 Kgs 19:9) referred to Hezekiah without reference to his kingship, perhaps to
make the reader expect such an address from the Assyrian messengers and to shock
them with the Assyrian address of King Hezekiah. And, finally, the narrator refers to
Hezekiah without reference to his kingship in his final three references (2 Kgs 19:14,
15, 20) to him when praying to Yahweh and receiving a word of prophecy in response.
This is perhaps to emphasize that it is Yahweh who is the real king and the one on
whom Judah must rely and not Hezekiah. Interestingly, the narrator refers to Hezekiah
without his official title when the three Judean officials return to him in 2 Kgs 18:37.
Revell (Designation of the Individual, 124) has suggested that this is purposeful to sug-
gest that these three officials now regarded Hezekiah as if already dethroned by the
Assyrians. We should of course allow room for the narrator to vary such designations
for reasons of style and to avoid redundancy (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:10).
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 157
nrsv). A more wooden translation is: Only a word ( )on the lips!58
This could be a reference to Hezekiahs promise ( )of tribute of gold
that he is now reneging on, or refer to Hezekiahs breach of treaty with
his suzerain. The Rabshakeh continues, On whom do you trust, that
you have rebelled against me? (v. 20). The reader is privy to the answer
to this question as 2 Kgs 18:5 explicitly stated that Hezekiah trusted in
Yahweh the God of Israel. The Rabshakeh knows of an alliance with
Egypt and makes disparaging comments about its soundness.59 The
rhetoric is not really directed to Hezekiah, who is not present, but is
aimed at the kings officials and then secondarily to the people listening
in from the walls of the city.60
Here the Rabshakeh calls the people sitting on the wall those who
are doomed with you to eat your own dung and to drink their own
urine. This is clearly a reference to the results of siege warfare; though
it appears to be a threat of future conditions should a siege occur. If our
understanding of is correct, it appears that no siege has taken
place as only the Assyrian emissaries and a small military contingent
have been sent to Jerusalem.
58
59
Jones (Kings, 570) argues that the Rabshakehs speeches are based on Isaiahs
prophecies.
60
The fact that people are on the walls of the city does not demand that this con-
versation took place outside the city. As is well known, some even lived on the walls
of cities (cf. Josh 1:15) and the wall would have been a good vantage point to see and
listen in on this important discussion. Wrthwein (1. Kn. 172. Kn. 25, 420) has
argued that the Rabshekeh here is addressing not the ordinary people of Jerusalem, but
the mercenary soldiers. This is an attempt to correlate this speech with the desertion of
mercenaries from Jerusalem mentioned in Sennacheribs annals. Cf. the Chicago and
Taylor Prisms, which assert that the mercenaries . . . he had brought into Jerusalem, his
royal city, in order to strengthen (it) ceased their services (following Mayers [Sen-
nacheribs Campaign, 189190] translation). However, the Rabshakehs offer is to
surrender and follow the Assyrian king to a new land. Wrthwein therefore considers
this offer a late addition to the Rabshakehs speech.
158 chapter three
predicts that the Assyrian will return to his own land (2 Kgs 19:7).61
Here a close reading is again necessary.
Thus says Yahweh: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have
heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me. I
myself will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumour and return
to his land; I will cause him to fall by the sword in his land.62
The closest antecedent for him in v. 7 is the king of Assyria although
it is the servants of the king of Assyria whose words have instilled
fear.63 The latter part of the prophecy of v. 7 (I will cause him to fall by
the sword in his land) makes it clear that Sennacherib is the focus of
this prophecy (as he is the one who dies at the end of the narrative).
61
It is interesting that this prophecys fulfilment is delayed. Perhaps this is an instant
where a prophecy about the future is transmitted in order to create the possibility of
its non-fulfilment noted by Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 179).
62
Second Kings 19:67.
63
There may be some purposeful ambiguity here. The him in v. 7 could refer to
the servants themselves or the Rabshakeh in particular, especially since both verbs
employed in Isaiahs prophecy are used in v. 8 (The Rabshakeh returned . . . because he
heard . . .). The Rabshakeh was the one who instilled fear in Jerusalem with his words
and Isaiahs prophecy is against this fear (he says Do not be afraid because of the
words . . . v. 6), so this prophecy may be in reference, at least in part, to the Rabshakeh
himself. The Rabshakeh returns to his master but finds him no longer at Lachish.
Rabshakeh hears that Sennacherib has moved to Libnah and it is there that he finds
his master. This purposeful ambiguity may be used narratively to create an expectation
of the end of the crisis that is temporarily frustrated.
64
Usually the Hebrew phrase is translated and he listened to not and
he heard concerning (e.g., 2 Kgs 16:9, Isa 46:3, 12; 55:2; Jer 36:25; Ezek 36:7). When
the meaning is hear about we would expect not ( e.g., Gen 41:15; Isa 37:9).
Another common meaning of this idiom is to obey (with Gen 28:7; Ex 6:9; Josh
1:17; 1 Kgs 12:15). However, this would make little sense in this context unless the
Rabshakeh was in league with Egypt. However, often alternates with in various
other contexts. Cf. 2 Kgs 19:20 and Gen 20:2.
65
The word in 2 Kgs 19:9 is usually understood as an adverbthat is, referring to
repetitionand has been translated again. If this is the sense here, the subject would
obviously be Sennacherib, who is again sending messengers. The syntactic construc-
tion of followed immediately by another verb functions this way quite regularly
in biblical narrative (e.g., Josh 5:2; Judg 19:7; 1 Kgs 13:33. See GKC 129g; and Joon
102g, 177b). However, there are many other instances where functions as a verb
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 159
in the same construction (e.g., Ex 14:2; 2 Sam 15:19; 1 Kgs 8:47; 2 Kgs 4:35). H. Haag
(La campagne, 356) has argued that translating as an adverb in 2 Kgs 19:9 is
incorrect due to the parallel in Isa 37:9 which reads he heard instead of he
returned substituting a verb for verb. (Interestingly, 1QIsaa contains both variants
together he heard and he returned.) If in this instance should be translated as a
verb, it could indicate that Sennacherib is not the subject but the Rabshakeh since only
the latter could return as Sennacherib was never there before. However, it makes
little sense to have Sennacheribs messenger (Rabshakeh) send a messenger.
66
The question of whether it was possible that Tirhakah fought against the Assyrians
in 701 is debated. Although Tirhakah was not king at this time, it is possible that he
was active against Sennacherib in 701. See Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 38793.
It is understandable how the later title became attached to his name because he later
was renowned for standing up against Assyria later. Referring to him as king is an
understandable anachronism. See Jones, Kings, 575. Of course, it is also possible that
Tirhakah was not active during this time and that, as Fritz (Kings, 373) asserts, his
name is mentioned here because of its associations with a policy of resisting Assyrian
expansion after Sennacherib. Cf. Dion, Sennacheribs Expedition, 1213.
67
Note that the MT has the plural , not the singular suggested by most
translations.
68
As Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 161) notes, the pace of the narrative is sometimes
held back, however. One of the techniques which have this result is the use of delay,
which heightens tension (possibly contrary to expectations) provided it is not too long
and does not cause the reader to forget the main topic.
69
Ambiguity regarding the fulfilment of prophecies in the DH is not uncommon.
See Weippert, Geschichten und Geschichte, 116131.
70
Rudman (Rabshakeh, 109) has pointed out how the second speech of the
Rabshakeh is narratively important as the tension created by the false god/true god
160 chapter three
dichotomy which is at the heart of these encounters reaches breaking point with the
statement let not the God in whom you trust deceive you.
71
Bostock (Portrayal of Trust, 64 n. 130) suggests that spreading out of the let-
ters implies prayer as the same verb ( )is used of stretching out hands in prayer
or worship.
72
It is interesting that the prophet connects a siege with Sennacheribs personal
presence since it has been noticed that Sennacherib preferred to conduct sieges
personally, as he did at Lachish, Kutha and Babylon. See Mayer, Sennacheribs
Campaign, 179 n. 32.
73
Hobbs, 2 Kings, 273.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 161
74
E.g., refers to being besieged (cf. Deut 20:19; 1 Kgs 24:10; 25:2; Jer 52:5);
is to allow oneself to be besieged (2 Chr 32:10); denotes building
siege-works against a city (Deut 20:20; Ezek 4:2; indicates setting a siege
against a city (Mic 4:14); indicates being under siege (Ezek 4:3; Zech 12:2).
See , HALOT 2:623. Nah 3:14 refers to the waters of siege. Closely
related is the noun siegework (cf. Isa 29:3).
75
E.g., Deut 20:12, 19; 28:52; 1 Sam 11:1; 20:15; 23:8; 1 Kgs 8:37; 16:15; 2 Kgs 6:24;
16:5; 17:5; 18:9; Isa 1:8; 21:2; 29:3; Jer 39:1; 1 Chr 20:1; 2 Chr 6:28; Dan 1:1. The verb
is used similarly, though less frequently and does not appear to be a technical term
for siege, but simply to harass or press hard (cf. Jer 19:9). The verb is used in
Ezek 24:2 in this sense, but the word basically denotes to befall. See , HALOT
2.759. is often used in the context of such pericopes, but clearly does not mean
siege but to do battle etc. (as 2 Kgs 16:5 makes clear).
76
E.g., Josh 10:34, 21; Judg 6:4; 20:19; 1 Sam 11:1; 2 Sam 12:28; 2 Kgs 25:1; Isa 29:3;
Jer 50:29; 52:4; Ps 27:3.
77
E.g., Ezek 4:2; Ps 27:3.
78
E.g., 2 Kgs 25:1; Jer 52:4; Ezek 4:2; 17:17; 21:27; 26:8; 2 Chr 32:10. This word is
often paired with . The hapaxlegomena is also used to refer to siege towers
in Isa 23:13. Also, in Qoh 9:13 refers to siegeworks or towers. Isa 29:3 has
for tower.
79
E.g., 2 Sam 20:15; Jer 6:6; 32:24; 33:4; Ezek 4:2; 17:17; 21:27; 26:8. Ezekiel alone
uses the term battering rams. Cf. Ezek 4:2; 21:27.
80
Which mentions siege mounds. Cf. 2 Kgs 19:32.
81
Though see Gen 38:12 where the same combination is not in a military situation.
Of course, in the hiphil form, this same combination refers to the offering of burnt
offerings (e.g., Lev 2:12; 1 Kgs 18:29; 2 Kgs 16:12).
162 chapter three
these latter two verbs does not have military implications.82 In fact, the
combination usually refers to the subject coming and then stopping
(as opposed to standing).83 Often this indicates standing to begin to
speakwhich is what is clearly denoted in this passage. If 2 Kgs 18:17
was indicating a situation of siege, some siege language would surely
have been used. Despite the possibility that the Assyrian annals refer
to a siege of Jerusalem, the narrative in Kings clearly does not.84
The realization that no siege occurs in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative fits in better with what we know of the ideology of the DH
and solves what would have been a difficult theological problem. Here
the prophetic word declares that no siege of Jerusalem will take place,
and the narrator is sure to narrate its fulfilmentregardless of the his-
torical event. Many prophecies in the DH predict events that are not
normally thought to be in the realm of history.85 Historical plausibility
was not an issue. The prophetic word stops the sun and moon (Josh
10:1214) and brings drought (1 Kgs 17:1, 7) so there is little doubt it
can predict that certain military actions will not be taken.
Unlike the events following the last prophecy of Isaiah, which delayed
resolution and heightened the tension, the events immediately following
this prophecy provide the denouement of this narrative. In this climax,
the angel of Yahweh strikes down the 185,000 of the Assyrian camp
(2 Kgs 19:35).86 The number of fatalities is incredible and has been
used to disparage the historicity of the accountas if death by angel
82
When combined with it means to come and stand in the presence of someone
(cf. 1 Sam 6:14; 1 Kgs 1:28; 3:16; 2 Kgs 5:15; 8:9; Jer 7:10).
83
Cf. 2 Sam 2:23; 20:12; 2 Kgs 5:9.
84
It is important to read the text in its own right. The text may be historically
inaccurate, but we should allow it to be so, rather than make it conform to what we
determine (through other evidences) happened.
85
As Weippert (Geschichten und Geschichte, 119) emphasizes.
86
This may be a theophanic appearance of Yahweh himself. Notice the purposeful
change in wording in the Chroniclers account from the angel of Yahweh went forth
to And Yahweh sent an angel (2 Chr 32:21) which clearly differentiates the angel
from God. As I have noted in an earlier study, Rather than attributing the destruction
to a theophany, Ch makes it clear that this angel is not Yahweh himself, but one of his
divine intermediaries doing his will. See Evans, Divine Intermediaries, 54558.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 163
87
As Clements (Deliverance of Jerusalem, 26) asserts Our knowledge of history and
of the working of divine providence shows us unmistakably that angels do not come
from heaven to slay the enemy. Antti Laato (Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701
b.c., SJOT 2 [1987]: 4968) has argued for the historicity of the putative Account B1
which he believes reflects a plague that swept through Sennacheribs camp. But Laato
dismisses the number of men lost as inaccurate.
88
The Hebrew makes clear that some woke up (Hiphil imperfect waw consec.
3 masc. pl.) in the morning to see the destruction and not just when morning dawned,
as nrsv translates, as the verb requires a plural subject. Interestingly, Cogan and Tad-
mor (II Kings, 239) translate similar to the nrsv At daybreak there were dead bodies
all about. It is interesting to note that the number of deaths here actually is outdone
by the number of Judeans which Sennacherib claims to have captured and deported
in his annals200,150.
89
In this chapter we are not setting out to discuss the historicity of the described
events, but merely attempting to clearly understand more clearly what is described.
90
Fritz (Kings, 376) actually describes the situation quite inaccurately when he asserts
the angel of death comes to kill the entire Assyrian army outside the city gates. The
text itself does not boast the destruction of the entire army nor does it locate this army
at Jerusalem. Similarly, Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign, 171) asserts that the Heze-
kiah-Sennacherib narrative culminates with the siege of Jerusalem in which 185,000
Assyrians are slaughtered overnight. Similarly, Bustenay Oded (Judah and the Exile,
in Israelite and Judean History [ed. John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1977], 435488) claims that the biblical story claims Sennacheribs army
was decimated by a miracle before the gates of Jerusalem (449450).
91
E.g., Honor (Sennacheribs Invasion, 58) writes,
It is important to note that the Biblical account states, that the angel of the Lord
went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians . . . It does not state where that
camp was situated. There is no reason for assuming that it was outside the walls of
164 chapter three
the misreadings are the result of a desire to make the biblical evidence
fit with a certain interpretation of Sennacheribs annals (that bird in
a cage means a siege of Jerusalem).
The immediate result of this angelic devastation is the fulfilment of
the first part of Isaiahs prophecy from v. 7 regarding Sennacheribs
return to his land (2 Kgs 19:36). The second half of the prophecy is
fulfilled when, ironically, after mocking the strength of other nations
gods (2 Kgs 19:35), Sennacheribs god cannot protect him, even though
he is piously worshipping him in his very own temple. Here the reader
observes the final fulfilment of the prophetic word. As predicted in 2 Kgs
19:7b, Sennacherib was killed in his own land. The fulfilment is some-
what subtle as there is no overt exactly noted fulfilment.92 However,
that this obituary fulfils the prophetic word is still unmistakable.
IV. Summary
Jerusalem. It may have been at Lachish or in the vicinity thereof, in the southern
part of the Shephela,or, while a small contingent was besieging (blockading)
Jerusalem, the main army may have advanced into Egypt, as far as Pelusium, in
which case Herodotus may be correct in his statement that the calamity occurred
in Pelusium, which is the entrance into Egypt.
Interestingly, writing before the discovery of the Assyrian annals, Simon Patrick (A
Commentary, 509) questions whether this Destruction was made in the Army that
besieged Libnah. This brings up the question of how much the Assyrian materials
have influenced the reading of the Kings narrative.
92
Von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy, 78) saw the system of prophetic predictions
and exactly noted fulfillments operative in the DH. Though he acknowledged that not
all prophecies contain such exactly noted fulfillments.
re-reading the hezekiah-sennacherib narrative 165
93
Geyer (2 Kings 18:1416, 604606) has similarly pointed out that the putative
Account A and the Assyrian annals do not actually agree in this instance.
94
A similar problem of cross-contamination of discrete evidences can be seen in
archaeology as well. For example, David Ussishkin (Sennacheribs Campaign, 352)
notes that there is no archaeological evidence indicating that a battle, siege, or con-
quest ever too place [at Jerusalem] but asserts, It seems clear that a large Assyrian
task force arrived in Jerusalem . . . as the biblical story tells us. . . .
95
As Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 102) has asserted, biblical writers were
not constrained by the historical facts themselvesor as known to usbut by the facts
agreed upon by their respective groups, and the expectations that were raised in these
discourses by these particular facts.
96
Or coherence with the picture of events present in other sources.
CHAPTER FOUR
This study has centred thus far on questions of the literary structure of
the Hezekiah narrative in 2 Kings with specific focus on the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative. It has attempted to determine how the various
sections of the narrative relate to each other with particular attention
paid to matters of internal coherence. These results were then mar-
shalled in an effort to determine identifiable sources that lay behind
this narrative. In light of this literary analysis, the text itself was then
re-evaluated as to what events it purports to describe. However, these
were mostly literary questions that could be carried out apart from
the question of historicity. These questions were largely internal and
concerned with what the narrative said and implied.
Analyzing the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative for historical purposes
is very different from analyses demanded for literary reasons. Neverthe-
less, the former analysis must take into account the results of the latter
analyses. The historical question is concerned with how one might use
this text in a historical reconstruction of Sennacheribs invasion.1
I. Historical Method
1
That is, to determine how the text relates to real events external to the text.
2
Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah (London: Routledge, 1998), 126.
168 chapter four
3
Yet it seems clear that the author of the narrative must have had access to sources
which gave him information concerning the events he describes. If we posit the author
living in the exile (over a century later than Sennacheribs invasion) there is no other
way to account for the correspondences we find between his narrative and Assyrian
accounts of the same events.
4
Cf. Moshe Weinfelds list in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1972), 320365. Weinfeld sees this phraseology as the only objective
criterion for determining whether a biblical passage is deuteronomic or not. . . . (vii).
Of course, this criterion has been questioned by some who argue that redactors and
glossators borrowed the very same style and vocabulary of their sources. E.g., Rudolf
Smend (Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978], 124)
argues that it is difficult to distinguish between DtrH, DtrP and DtrN since the latter
two imitate DtrH since they were students of their predecessors. A. Graeme Auld (Kings
Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bibles Kings [Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994], 151) concurs, suggesting that This so-called Deuteronomistic language
was influential, and later scribes could also write it! Despite these reservations, the
only sure foundation for claiming deuteronomistic attribution is language . . . . [it is] the
primary criterion we have. . . . (Antony F. Campbell, Martin Noth and the Deuter-
onomistic History, in The History of Israels Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
[ed. Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham; JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994], 3163, here, 55).
5
E.g., 2 Kgs 18:3 do the right; 2 Kgs 18:4 high places; 2 Kgs
18:6 he cleaved to Yahweh; 2 Kgs 18:56 there was no one like him (
) . . . kept the commands Yahweh commanded Moses (
) See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 333 no. 15, 326 nos. 910, 333
no. 5, 3589 no. 21.
6
See Rowley, Hezekiahs Reform, 425; Weinfeld, Cult Centralization, 2056;
Lowell K. Handy, Hezekiahs Unlikely Reform, ZAW 100 (1988): 11115; Yohanan
Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Beginnings to
using kings in historical reconstruction 169
the End of the First Temple Period (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 229234; R. H.
Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOTSup 120;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 151; R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion
in the Old Testament Period (OTL; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992),
1.180; and Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 218220. Of course others (especially in German
scholarship) have judged these events to be less than historical. For the list of literature,
see Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 174, n. 34; and Hoffmann, Reform und
Reformen, 146155. Nadav Naaman (The Debated Historicity of Hezekiahs Reform
in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research, ZAW 107 [1995]: 179195)
doubts that Hezekiah implemented a wide-spread reform, suggesting that Dtr composed
2 Kgs 18:4 through a combination of laws from Deut 7:5 and 12:3 with a historical
archival note regarding the destruction of Nehushtan (181).
7
E.g., 2 Kgs 17:12 fetishes; 2 Kgs 17:15 vanity, nothingness; 2 Kgs
17:17 to pass the son in fire; 2 Kgs 18:12 transgress his
covenant. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 323 no. 5; 322 no. 17; 323 no. 4; and
340 no. 4.
8
Childs (Assyrian Crisis, 70) argued that the style of Account A is that of the Dtr
historians work. Similarly, Gonalves, Lexpdition, 36870.
9
Even though this means dating the text and Dtrs work to the exilic period, as Gary
N. Knoppers (The Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments and Detours, in
The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches [ed. David
W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999], 214215) asserts, the
chronological distance between the composition of this work and the events it depicts
does not constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss its value for history. Elsewhere,
Knoppers (History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms, in The Chronicler as
Historian [ed. M. Patrick Graham, et al.; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1997], 178203) has also argued against those who dismiss the Chroniclers work as
devoid of historical value on the basis of stereotypical Chronistic vocabulary (185).
10
As evidenced by the various volumes produced by the European Seminar on His-
torical Methodology. See Lester L. Grabbe, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (JSOTSup
393; ESHM 5; New York: T&T Clark, 2005); idem, Like a Bird in a Cage; idem, Can
a History of Israel Be Written? (JSOTSup 245; ESHM 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997); idem, Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the
Hellenistic Period (JSOTSup 317; ESHM 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001);
and idem, Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology (JSOTSup 278;
ESHM 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
170 chapter four
11
A principle widely (though inconsistently) applied is that of verification. That is,
any biblical material must be verified by non-biblical evidence before it can be judged
historically reliable. This can be seen as far back as J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes
(A History of Ancient Israel and Judah [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 74) who talk
about non-biblical control evidence. However, Miller and Hayes actually applied this
principle inconsistently. Thomas L. Thompson (Early History of the Israelite People:
From the Written and Archaeological Sources [SHCANE 4; Leiden: Brill, 1994]) has
demanded that verification is necessary before anything in the OT/HB can be taken
as historical (132). However, much of the biblical text cannot be verified due to the
limited evidence available and the very accidental nature of our sources. See Hans
M. Barstad, The Strange Fear of the Bible: Some Reflections on the Bibliophobia in
Recent Ancient Israelite Historiography, in Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as
History and Ideology (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 278; ESHM 2; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 120127, here 126. As William W. Hallo (Jerusalem Under
Hezekiah: An Assyriological Perspective, in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: Continuum, 1999],
3650) has opined, the minimalist demand for verification lacks a rational basis, given
the randomness of these sources and their accidental discovery.
12
Grabbe (Leading Captivity Captive, 154) notes that this is the most contentious
issue among the European Seminar in Historical Methodology members. Some sug-
gest that biblical material that is unverified should be the subject of extreme scepti-
cism, while others suggest that the same will quite often have to be given the benefit
of the doubt. See Barstad, Strange Fear, 126. Iain W. Provan (In the Stable with
the Dwarves: Testimony, Interpretation, Faith and the History of Israel, in Windows
into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel [ed.
V. Philips Long, et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002], 173) has questioned
whether it is not ones primary attitude to the texts in the first instance that is far
more decisive in terms of ones approach to the history of Israel than the discovery
of this or that piece of external data. To illustrate his point he notes the occasion of
the discovery of the Tel Dan stele which was judged by different scholars in varying
ways. See Ehud Ben Zvi, On the Reading bytdwd in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan,
JSOT 64 (1994): 2532; Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, Did Biran Kill
David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology, JSOT 64 (1994): 322; Andre Lemaire,
The Tel Dan as a Piece of Royal Historiography, JSOT 81 (1998): 318; Kenneth A.
Kitchen, A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century b.c.e. and Deity
dod as Dead as the Dodo, JSOT 76 (1997): 2944; and F. C. Cryer, Of Epistemology,
Northwest-Semitic Epigraphy and Irony: The bytdwd/House of David Inscription
Revisited, JSOT 69 (1996): 317.
13
The goals in such an evaluation also differ radically depending on the scholar.
Some working in the field of history are most concerned with the philosophy of his-
tory. Rather than having the goal of actually assessing the evidence to determine what
really happened such a scholar is concerned with what the evidence can tell us about
the people that produced it. E.g., Philip R. Davies (Whose History? Whose Israel?
using kings in historical reconstruction 171
Whose Bible? Biblical Histories, Ancient and Modern, in Can a History of Israel Be
Written? [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 278; ESHM 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997], 10422) writes, the use of biblical historiographical narrative for critical
reconstruction of periods that it describes (rather than periods in which it was written)
is precarious and only possible where there is [sic] adequate independent data. . . . The
historical testimony of any work will be relevant in the first instance to the time in which
it was written (10405). Why this is so is not explained by Davies. Instead he merely
asserts this. As Provan (In the Stable with the Dwarves, 172, n. 24) has questioned,
Why should we believe . . . that the historical testimony of texts is relevant in the first
instance to their own times, and can only be used in a secondary respect to build a
picture of the periods which they claim to be describing? Nevertheless, this dictum is
oft repeated as a pillar of historical studies. Alternatively, William W. Hallo (Sumerian
Historiography, in History Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and
Cuneiform Literatures [ed. Moshe Weinfeld and Hayim Tadmor; Jerusalem: Magnes,
1993], 10) suggests that [if ] history is the intellectual form in which a civilization
renders account to itself of its past . . . we must listen to the native traditions in which
these accounts are rendered concluding that literary sources should be included in
the enterprise [of historical reconstruction] in the first place.
14
What actually would count as verification is also vigorously debated. See Provan,
In the Stable with the Dwarves, 281319, esp. 173174.
15
Elton, Practice, 8696; and Paul K. Conkin and Roland N. Stromberg, The Heritage
and Challenge of History (New York: Dodd & Mead, 1971), 216217. Though Marc
Bloch (The Historians Craft [New York: Random House, 1953], 110) cautions that
criticism of sources will always remain a subtle art. There is no recipe for it. Diana
Edelman (Doing History in Biblical Studies, in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact
and Israels Past [ed. Diana Edelman; JSOTSup 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 14)
points out that the exact set of methods to be employed [are] multidisciplinary and
determined by the nature of the available evidence.
16
Elton, Practice, 10. Cf. Conkin and Stromberg, Heritage, 216217.
17
As noted at the beginning of our study, this monograph will not proceed with
the steps of conceptual invention and inductive verification which are required to
attain a full-blown reconstruction of the historical events of 701 b.c.e.
18
Edelmen (Doing History, 22) notes that of first order is the task of establishing
the structural and literary devices used to create the final form of the narrative [and]
172 chapter four
31
Of course, all ancient historiography had ideological aims. This fact by itself should
not disqualify these texts from entering into a historical reconstruction. Though Lemche
(Ancient Israel, 54) would suggest barring such texts for this reason. He writes, the
[biblical] author attempted to present his narrative in such a way as it advanced his own
cause (as if this was a new insight) concluding that for this reason when attempting to
use the biblical text in historical reconstruction we ought not to expect that it should
be possible to rediscover the objective or actual historical events.
32
Making Lemches (The Israelites in History and Tradition [Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1998], 26) judgment that this narrative is only a tale about the past that
includes, however, an isolated historical residue contained in the narrative unwarranted.
This hardly seems properly referred to as isolated historical residue.
using kings in historical reconstruction 175
33
I have omitted from the list of unparalleled events Hezekiahs actions of sending
for the prophet, entering the temple, calling for the prophet. A connection between the
monarchy and the office of the prophet appears to have a historical basis. Also, most
of the individual episodes within the story could conceivably have a historical basis.
However, they could equally have been invented. In light of our present knowledge, to
decide that one is historical (say Hezekiahs calling for prophetic advice) and another
not (Hezekiahs bringing the letter-threat to the temple and his prayer) appears to be
arbitrary depending entirely on ones predisposition towards the biblical text.
34
Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign, 176) suggests that this verse may refer to the
removal of Padi from Ekron who was delivered to Hezekiah according to the Assyr-
ian annals. Of course, this verse does not mention Ekron or Padi so his suggestion is
pure speculation.
35
Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 95) notes this lacunae and comments that
Gaza was likely captured by Assyrian foes.
36
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:303). This is despite the claim that all the kings of Amurru brought tribute
to Sennacherib and explicitly naming the other kings.
37
The annals read [Hezekiahs] cities which I had despoiled I cut off from his land
and gave them to . . . . Silli-bel, king of Gaza. See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem,
translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:303).
38
Hezekiahs success against Philistia is also verified in the Azekah inscription (also
known as Letter to the God Assur) which refers to [the city X] a royal [city] of the
Philistines which He[zek]iah had taken and fortified for himself. See Sennacherib:
The AZEKAH Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119D:304). For a
transliteration of the extant text see Mayer, Sennacheribs Campaign, 198.
176 chapter four
39
Interestingly, Lachish is not mentioned in the putative Account A.
40
Contra Dever (Archaeology, 106) who erroneously asserts that the fall of Lachish
is depicted both on [Sennacheribs] famous palace reliefs now in the British Museum
and in his Annals. In fact, Dever draws great significance from the fall of Lachish in
701 b.c.e. being not even mentioned by the biblical writers, except that the writer of
Kings notes in passing that Hezekiah sent messengers to Sennacherib at Lachish, the
Chronicler adding that the city was under siege (107). However, Devers statements
here are extremely inaccurate. The Chronicler does not describe Lachish as under
siege and the account in Kings mentions Lachish three times! While he marvels at the
silence of the biblical accounts concerning Lachish, he blatantly ignores the fact that
Sennacheribs annals also ignore the event and do not even mention the city. Somehow
Dever views the archaeological evidence for the destruction of Lachish as undermining
the biblical account, criticizing Miller and Hayes for not dwelling on this material evi-
dence because they do not reinforce the biblical tradition (ibid., 108). Clearly Dever
is better at reading material remains than he is at reading texts. The biblical writers
clearly state that Sennacherib conquered all the fortified cities of Judah (2 Kgs 18:13)
and explicitly refer to Lachish in the next verse as Sennacheribs base of operations
(2 Kgs 18:14) which implies his conquest of the Judean city. Contrary to the entire
thrust of Devers argument, any significance drawn from the lack of a description of
Lachishs fall is relevant only for Sennacheribs annals as they do not even mention
the city let alone its fall!
41
See Christoph Uehlinger, Clio in a World of PicturesAnother Look at the
Lachish Reliefs from Sennacheribs Southwest Palace at Nineveh, in Like a Bird in
a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363;
ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 221305, esp. 22532.
42
Lester L. Grabbe ( The Exile Under the Theodolite: Historiography as Triangula-
tion, in Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology [ed. Lester L.
Grabbe; JSOTSup 278; ESHM 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 80100)
makes an analogous appeal for the trustworthiness of the Hebrew account of the fall
of Jerusalem and the deportation of many people by the Babylonians despite the fact
that these events are not paralleled in Mesopotamian sources. He writes, Information
relating specifically to Judah and Jerusalem stops about 594 b.c.e., apart from the bibli-
cal text, but in the preceding two decades a number of sources mention the situation
using kings in historical reconstruction 177
in Judah specifically as well as the events taking place in Mesopotamia and Syria in
general. This gives us a considerable degree of confidence in the account in 2 Kings 25
which describes the reign of Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem (90).
43
Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 99) notes that the reference to the Egyptian
expedition in 2 Kings 19 contradicts Sennacheribs annals because it does not directly
point to the failure of the Egyptian expedition. He notes that if the reference to the
Egyptians is connected with Sennacheribs withdrawal in the Kings account, then
Tirhakahs expedition cannot be considered a failure (99).
44
The annal reads, Trusting in the god Ashur, my lord, I fought with them and
inflicted a defeat upon them. See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by
Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:303).
45
Laato (Assyrian Propaganda, 199) explains that the king was regarded as under
the protection of the gods, and this was used to legitimate his position among his own
people. Such legitimation implied that the military campaigns of the king were regarded
as being under divine blessing. It was believed that the gods would provide for the king
and his army and see to it that their enemies were defeated.
178 chapter four
46
E.g., 2 Kgs 17:4; Hos 12:2; Isa 30:17; 31:1, 3; Jer 37:68; 46:25; Ezek 29:67.
47
As Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 82) argues, the book of Kings stresses
the futility of relying on mighty worldly powers (e.g., Egypt) rather than Yhwh. . . .
48
It has been interestingly suggested that Hezekiahs words to Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:3/Isa
37:3 reveal repentance for his relying on Egypt to bring them out of the crisis instead
of relying on Yahweh. See Katheryn P. Darr, No Strength to Deliver: A Contextual
Analysis of Hezekiahs Proverb in Isaiah 37.3b, in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. Roy F.
Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996), 219256.
49
Israel Ephal, On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern
Empires: A Research Outline, in History Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in
Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures (ed. Moshe Weinfeld and Hayim Tadmor; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1983), 88106.
50
Though Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign, 174) suggests that Assyria had the
ability to crush insurgency whenever and wherever it arose.
51
Ephal, On Warfare, 97.
52
As Ephal (ibid.) notes, Enemy action across the border cannot always be predicted.
using kings in historical reconstruction 179
53
Ephal (ibid.) suggests this is the reason the Assyrian description of the battle of
Eltekeh is relatively modest . . . lacking details which usually appear in descriptions of
victories.
54
Ibid., 98.
55
Hjelm (Jerusalems Rise, 46) has argued that the advance of an Egyptian force
would in a world of reality have had no effect on Assyrian strategies since it would
have given the Assyrian armies enough time to conquer Jerusalem. How Hjelm can
support this statement is puzzling since: a) it is not said where this Egyptian force was at
this point in the narrative; b) conquering a fortified city like Jerusalem was not a quick
affair, but would take a long term commitment (cf. the Assyrian siege of Samaria which
purportedly lasted three years [2 Kgs 18:910], and the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem
which purportedly lasted six months [2 Kgs 25:12]). As Smelik (Distortion, 92)
asserts (a) complete siege of Jerusalem would have taken the Assyrian king too much
time and money. . . . Siege warfare in the ancient Near East was rare as it involved
tying up considerable forces for a long time. . . . See Ephal, On Warfare, 96.
56
E.g., Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 8082; and Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 242.
180 chapter four
mission is plausible. While this does not prove its historicity, plausibility
has value in reconstructing an event with very limited data.57
However, an assessment of the ideology of the actual speeches of
the Assyrian emissaries recorded in 2 Kings 1819 throws doubt on
supposing that their actual content is historical. As previous studies
have pointed out, the speeches comprise common biblical language and
even resemble prophetic language, rather than reflect actual Assyrian
speech and propaganda.58 The content of the speeches, therefore, fails
the counter-ideology test. This makes it is possible that the speeches
themselves may be free compositions of the biblical writer. However,
does it follow from this that the mission of Assyrian emissaries is
unhistorical?59
If we employ a counterfactual as a heuristic device here, it will help
sharpen our framing of this question.60 Let us suppose that the writer
of 2 Kings 1819 in fact wove the narrative of the visit of the emissar-
ies out of whole cloth. Who would the writer narrate as the speaker
of these blasphemous words? Would the Rabshakeh be the prime
candidate? It would seem more likely that a more important Assyrian
official would have been presented as uttering these threats.61 The fact
that the speaker is the Rabshakeh actually suggests that a genuine his-
torical memory lay behind this record of the Rabshakehs mission to
57
As Grabbe ( The Exile, 97) has asserted, The fact that something is plausible
is not the same as saying it is demonstrated, but plausibility is a first stage in the
process of argument.
58
Ben Zvi, Who Wrote the Speech, 7992; and Rudman, Rabshakeh, 100. Contra
Cohen, Neo-Assyrian Elements, 3248; Machinist, The Rab Saqeh, 15168; and
Weinfeld, Cult Centralization, 20212.
59
We have already shown the plausibility of an Assyrian mission through similar/
parallel accounts. See above.
60
A counterfactual is a helpful way of investigating alternative historical scenarios
in order to calculate probability of an event. See J. Cheryl Exum, Why Virtual His-
tory? Alternatives, Counterfactuals, and the Bible, in Virtual History and the Bible (ed.
J. Cheryl Exum; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 7. As Exum has noted how can we explain what
happened if we do not consider what happened was only one of a number of possible
outcomes? (ibid., 7). By exploring alternative scenarios, the plausibility and probability
of what one posits actually happened is investigated.
61
Ben Zvi (Who Wrote the Speech, 92) suggests, The theological importance of
the message that the biblical writer(s) put in [Rabshakehs] mouth is more appropri-
ate for the king of Assyria. If the literary features of the piece required a messenger,
as it seems, the more suitable messenger would be a high-ranking Assyrian officer,
like Tartan.
using kings in historical reconstruction 181
62
Ben Zvi (ibid.) suggests that there were limits to the writers freedom as some
collective memory about an Assyrian Rabshakeh, who came to Jerusalem at that time
with a message from the Assyrian king, . . . restricted him.
63
It is not problematic that the Assyrian records do not mention this mission of
the emissaries. First, it was not typical for such diplomatic missions to be relayed
in the Annals. Secondly, it is reasonable to assume the annals would not mention it since
the rhetorical mission was a failureJerusalem did not surrender. Assyrian practice
invariably was to omit failures. See Laato, Assyrian Propaganda, 198226.
64
I am not using the term propaganda pejoratively.
65
Rejecting the likelihood of any Assyrian setback in the 701 campaign, Mayer
(Sennacheribs Campaign, 180) suggests that evidently, Sennacherib . . . did not
consider the city of Jerusalem worth the effort, unlike Lachish. However, this is not
evident but seems wholly informed by the presupposition that there was no setback
to Assyrian progress and the fact that Jerusalem was not taken.
66
Even in battles where Assyria was not entirely successful they were recorded as
such by the annalists. See A. K. Grayson, Problematic Battles in Mesopotamian His-
tory, in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April
25, 1965 (ed. H. G. Gttersbock and Th. Jacobsen; AS 16; Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1965), 337342; and Laato, Assyrian Propaganda, 198226.
182 chapter four
The annals convey the ideology of the Assyrian centre of power.67 The
criteria of counter-ideology will not decide the issue.68
Regarding parallels that strengthen plausibility, the historical record
of Assyrian victory would seem to strengthen the plausibility that
Assyria was also victorious in this campaign. Assyrian hegemony grew
in strength under Sennacheribs successors (Esarhaddon and Ashurba-
nipal) and was unmitigated for many decades to follow.69 However, to
employ a counter-factual, if Sennacherib did suffer some type of defeat
in his Hatti campaign, would the Assyrian empire have lost control of
the Levant? Would Assyrian hegemony be rattled or dismantled? Not
likely. Other examples of Assyrian losses are recorded in the Babylonian
Chronicles, which are contradicted by the Assyrian accounts. Yet the
fact that Assyria did suffer some defeats, did not affect their overall
sovereignty as a world empire.70
However, if another counter-factual is employed, clarity on this issue
is sharpened. What if Sennacherib was an unqualified victor in his third
campaign? Would he leave Hezekiah, the ringleader of the rebels, on the
throne?71 Not likely.72 If there were no setbacks, we would expect the
67
Ben Zvi, Malleability and its Limits, 79. Or as Philip R. Davies (In Search of
Ancient Israel [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 34) puts it . . . Sennacheribs
account belongs with a number of other similar texts which serve the vanity of the
Assyrian monarchs, sustain the loyalty and cohesion of the Assyrian nation, and prob-
ably intend to cow would-be rebels into renouncing thoughts of rebellion. The role
of theological claims in Assyrian accounts has been emphasized by Rainer Albertz in
Die Exilszeit als Ernstfall fr eine historische Rekonstruktion ohne biblische Texte:
Die neubabylonischen Knigsinschriften als Primrquelle, in Leading Captivity Cap-
tive: The Exile as History and Ideology (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 278; ESHM 2;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 2239.
68
In fact such a methodology does not allow for situations where historical reality
actually matched the espoused ideology.
69
However, in his failure to conquer Jerusalem, perhaps some weakening of Sen-
nacheribs power is revealed. This weakening culminated in his assassination by his
sons, which may reflect this. Although the assassination was sometime later than the
campaign in the Levant, it could be that the failure to take Jerusalem was an early
warning sign of this weakness.
70
See Laato, Assyrian Propaganda, 20309.
71
Hezekiah is thought to be the leader of this rebellion of nations. See Redford, Egypt,
Canaan, and Israel, 351; Vogt, Der Aufstand Hiskias, 69; Nadav Naaman, Forced
Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West, in
Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephal; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1991), 94; Soggin, History of Ancient Israel, 249; and Gallagher, Sennacheribs
Campaign, 11012, 26374.
72
As Lester L. Grabbe (Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacheribs
Campaign in 701 b.c.e., in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701
using kings in historical reconstruction 183
BCE [ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003], 139) has noted, Sennacheribs listing of the destruction wrought on Judah
and the resultant tribute by Hezekiah only confirms the peculiarity of Hezekiah being
allowed to remain on the throne and the strange silence about the taking of Jerusalem.
However, this point is debatable. For example, R. Albertz suggests that there is no prob-
lem with Sennacherib leaving Hezekiah on the throne since he paid tribute. See Grabbe,
Reflections on the Discussion, 321. Similarly, Ludwig Massmann (Sanheribs Politik
in Juda: Beobachtungen und Erwgungen zum Ausgang der Konfrontation Hiskias mit
den Assyrern, in Kein Land fr sich allein [Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002],
167180) deems Judah a special situation where the Assyrians preferred an indirect
form of rule, only demanding tribute and allowing Hezekiah to remain king.
73
This practice is clearly seen in Sennacheribs annals where he claims to have
installed Tubalu on the throne in Sidon in place of Lulli. Regarding Sidqa, king of
Ashkelon, Sennacherib claims to have deported him and set Sharruludari . . . over
the people of Ashkelon as king in his place. See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem,
translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:302303). In Sennacheribs campaign
against Babylon he defeats Merodach-Baladan then installs Bel-ibni, a native born
Babylonian, who was raised in [Sennacheribs] palace like a young puppy as king. See
Sennacheribs First Campaign: Against Merodach-Baladan, translated by Mordechai
Cogan (COS 2.119A:30002). In the OT/HB we see similar practice reflected (e.g., the
Syro-Ephraimite War, Nebuchadnezzars actions against the Judean kings).
74
See Herodotus Hist. 2.141.
75
Grabbe, Of Mice and Dead Men, 119140, esp. 13637. Contra Cogan and
Tadmor (II Kings, 251) who suggest that Herodotus account was merely a develop-
ment from the biblical one.
76
The angel of Yahweh is associated with (or represents) a plague in the census
narrative of 2 Samuel 24 (see esp. vv. 1516). This can lead to the identification or
association of a plague with the angel of Yahweh in 2 Kgs 19:35. Regarding Herodotus
account, it has often been pointed out that often mice carried plague and became asso-
ciated with plagues in the ancient world. This has been combined with the interpreta-
tion of the angel of Yahweh as plague in 2 Kgs 19:35. However, neither text actually
attributes the defeat to a plague, so the critic must be cautious in concluding that a
plague was what actually happened. Grabbe (Of Mice and Dead Men, 136) suggests
that Herodotus did not intend his story to be understood as a plague and asserts that
such an interpretation in fact looks like a blatant reading of (an interpretation of )
2 Kgs 19.35 into Herodotus.
184 chapter four
However, it has often been objected that 2 Kings and Herodotus locate
this Assyrian defeat in different locations.77 Since the Kings account
does not locate the defeat at Jerusalem, the possibility exists that they
refer to the same historical memory.78 Both feed into and have been
shaped by their respective ideologies.79 However, there is still some
counter-ideological aspect to the inclusion of this defeat in the 2 Kings
account. As noted previously, the location of the angelic attack in the
2 Kings account is ambiguous. Narratively, it would appear that the
Assyrian army was at that point engaging the Egyptians in battle.80 While
it is obvious that Yahweh himself is given credit for the defeat of the
Assyrians, placing that defeat in a context of a clash with the Egyptians
is counter-ideological and only hesitatingly referred to in the 2 Kings
account.81 It seems likely that the Assyrian setback that occurred in
conflict with the Egyptians was interpreted by the Judeans as an act of
Yahweh. It was this significance or meaning attached to the historical
event that mattered to the author of 2 Kings more than any desire to
77
E.g., M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (II Kings, 251) presuppose that the destruction
of the Assyrian army is supposed to have taken place at Jerusalem as they reject the
relevance of Herodotus description of a similar defeat due to the distance between
Jerusalem and Pelusium.
78
Several Egyptologists have posited such an Egyptian victory. E.g., Redford (Egypt,
Canaan, and Israel, 351354) concludes that there can be no doubt that it was an
unexpected and serious reverse for Assyrian arms, and contributed significantly to
Sennacheribs permanent withdrawal from the Levant. Cf. Kitchen, Third Intermedi-
ate Period, 383386, 584; and Yurco, Sennacheribs Third Campaign, 221240, esp.
233237.
79
Even a minimalist like Lemche (Ancient Israel, 70) notes the Assyrian tendency
to decorate the facts, in light of which he concludes the possibility that Sennacherib
had to abandon his siege of Jerusalem for one reason or another, perhaps including
an epidemic among his troops (cf. 2 Kgs 19.3536), still exists. Similarly, Liverani
(Israels History, 148) posits the onset of an epidemic among the besiegers and the
imminent return of an Egyptian army as reasons for the deliverance of Jerusalem
from Assyrian conquest.
80
However, the author does not mention it explicitly. Perhaps the author has
purposefully manipulated the presentation of events to make the attack of the angel
appear to be outside of Jerusalem. Therefore, immediately previous to his narration
of the nocturnal angelic assault he quotes the prophecy of how Yahweh will defend
this city (i.e., Jerusalem). This juxtaposition allows the reader to perhaps view the
following account in relation to Jerusalem when in fact it referred to losses suffered
whilst in conflict with the Egyptians. This could be due to the biblical hesitation to
ascribe Egypt with any saving power (e.g., Isa 31:7).
81
Grabbe (Of Mice and Dead Men, 139) views Herodotus account as a valuable
asset in historical reconstruction of Sennacheribs campaign. He writes an unexpected
defeat or serious setback by the Egyptians could be one of the reasons for his withdrawal
without taking Jerusalem. Herodotus account is a useful piece in the puzzle and must
be recognized as such. . . .
using kings in historical reconstruction 185
record historical fact simply for posterity. What is more, the fact that
a tradition of an Assyrian defeat is referred to in two different and
independent texts suggests that the referent existed in a world beyond
either narrative.82 While historians will be cautious in interpreting these
two texts or suggesting that they are a historical memory of the same
event, the fact that two separate groups remembered a defeat suffered
by Sennacheribs army seems to point to a historical event that lay
behind both memories.83
III. Conclusion
82
As Ben Zvi (Malleability and its Limits, 103) writes, Shared perceptions or
representations by diametrically separate groups must point to something that stands
beyond or outside their own perceptions or representations, although these percep-
tions or representations surely point at it. If these perceptions or representations are
independent, this something is likely to be what we usually call the historical event.
Though Ben Zvi does not apply this principle to the Herodotus and 2 Kings accounts,
it seems apropos here.
83
Regarding the Herodotus text, Mayer (Sennacheribs Campaign, 171) suggests
that it may have derived from a local tradition that confused the fight between Sennach-
erib and Egyptian troops at the Judean city of Eltekeh with an invasion of Egypt.
186 chapter four
Appendix
Table 16
2 Kings Azekah Inscription Sennacheribs Other Assyrian
K 6205 Annals84 Sources
2 Kgs 18:7: Line 4: [Hezek]iah Hezekiah, the Bulls 1, 2 and 3:
Hezekiah rebels of Judah85 Judean, who had The notorious
against Assyria not submitted to rebel Hezekiah87
my yoke86
2 Kgs 18:8: Line 11: [the city Hezekiah held (Philistines not
[Hezekiah] X] a royal [city] prisoner the mentioned)
attacked the of the Philistines, Philistine king
Philistines which He[zek]iah of Ekron89
had taken and
fortified for
himself 88
2 Kgs 18:8: (Gazas capture (Gazas capture (Gazas capture
[Hezekiah] by Assyrian foes is by Assyrian foes by Assyrian
attacked . . . not mentioned) is not mentioned) foes is not
Gaza and its mentioned)
territory, from
watchtower to
fortified city.
84
The Chicago and Taylor Prisms and Bull 4 correspond so closely (other than
orthographical and minor deviations) that they are usually translated together. E.g.,
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:302
303). The Rassam Cylinder corresponds closely except in its more elaborate description
of the tribute.
85
Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119D:304).
86
The phrase who had not submitted to my yoke is not found on the Rassam
cylinder which dates from 700 b.c.e., but was added in the version on the Chicago
Prism which is dated 691 b.c.e. See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by
Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:303).
87
The Siege of Jerusalem, translated by A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET:288). I have
followed Mayers (Sennacheribs Campaign, 193194) translation.
88
Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119D:304). Laato (Assyrian Propaganda, 214) notes a possible reconstruction of the
name of the city as Gath which he suggests would explain the reference to a lament
over Gath along with other cities of Judah in Mic 1:10.
89
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:
302303).
using kings in historical reconstruction 187
Table 16 (cont.)
2 Kings Azekah Inscription Sennacheribs Other Assyrian
K 6205 Annals Sources
90
Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119D:304).
91
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:302).
92
The Siege of Jerusalem, translated by A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET:288). I have
followed Mayers (Sennacheribs Campaign, 193194) translation.
93
Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119D:304).
94
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119B:
303).
95
The Siege of Jerusalem, translated by A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET:288). I have
followed Mayers (Sennacheribs Campaign, 193194) translation.
188 chapter four
Table 16 (cont.)
2 Kings Azekah Inscription Sennacheribs Other Assyrian
K 6205 Annals Sources
96
Although booty is recorded. Line 20: [cattle and sh]eep, from its midst I t[ook]
out, and as] sp[oil I counted.] See Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated
by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119D:304).
97
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:303).
98
SennacheribLachish Relief Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119C:304).
99
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:303).
using kings in historical reconstruction 189
Table 16 (cont.)
2 Kings Azekah Inscription Sennacheribs Other Assyrian
K 6205 Annals Sources
100
The kings of Egypt, (and) the bowman, chariot corps and cavalry of the kings of
Ethiopia. . . . See Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan
(COS 2.119B:303).
101
Ibid.
190 chapter four
Table 16 (cont.)
2 Kings Azekah Inscription Sennacheribs Other Assyrian
K 6205 Annals Sources
102
Begg (Element of the Deuteronomistic History, 32) has argued that the despo-
liation notices in the DH are intentional devices employed by Dtr to show the entire
history of post-Solomonic Judah to be seen as oriented toward and repeatedly foreshad-
owing the definitive loss of wealth of the palace and temple to the Babylonians in 587.
Since this despoliation notice goes along so well with Dtrs ideology and his purpose for
writing his history, if we did not have a parallel account in Assyrian sources, perhaps
this section would have been in doubt as to its historical veracity.
103
Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119B:303). The Assyrian annal also lists additional tribute paid to Sennacherib (e.g.,
soldiers, beds of ivory, elephant hides, linen, wool, palace women etc.).
104
Although booty is recorded. Line 20: [cattle and sh]eep, from its midst I t[ook]
out, and as] sp[oil I counted.] See Sennacherib: The AZEKAH Inscription, translated
by Mordechai Cogan (COS 2.119D:304).
105
The Chicago and Taylor prism do not list the items following boxwood. Only
the Rassam Cylinder contains enumerates these items.
106
SennacheribLachish Relief Inscription, translated by Mordechai Cogan (COS
2.119C:304).
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
I. Summary
The goal of this work has been to provide a thorough literary analysis
of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, which would serve to: reassess
source-critical delineations, allow a better understanding of the claims
of the text, and help assess the usefulness of the text in historical
reconstruction. By employing not only classical source criticism, but
also rhetorical criticism, we have discovered that the narrative cannot
be divided so neatly into sources. In fact, the dominant source-critical
hypotheses have failed to stand up to scrutiny. Any source(s) that were
employed by the author of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative remain
unidentifiable.1
In light of the literary unity of the passage, a new re-reading of the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative was undertaken. This close reading
found that a siege of Jerusalem was not referred to in the text. The
report of a heavy force ( ) visiting Jerusalem appears to refer to
an Assyrian military detachment that accompanied the Assyrian mes-
sengers rather than a besieging army at the gate of Jerusalem. A close
reading of the narrative revealed that no siege language was employed
in the narrative, except where Isaiah prophesies that there will be no
siege (2 Kgs 19:32). It would appear that such an event was read into
the text under the impetus of a certain reading of the Assyrian annals
that appeared to describe such an event.2
1
As Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 85) wrote, the work does show various signs of
sources which Dtr. used only for particular pieces of information, without re-working
them very completely, even though we cannot tell the extent and scope of these sources
(emphasis mine).
2
Interestingly, recent scholarship has overturned such a reading of the latter. Mayer
(Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer) argued that the Assyrians did not set up siege
works against Jerusalem directly. The recent publication by the European Seminar in
Historical Methodology concluded that there was no evidence for a siege of Jerusalem
in extra-biblical sources, both material and literary. See Grabbe, ed., Like a Bird in a
Cage. Grabbe sums up the conclusions in this regard as, There is no evidence for a
siege of Jerusalem in the normal sense of an army investing it and casting up a siege
192 chapter five
II. Implications
mound around it. Rather, the communication routes to the city were evidently cut.
See idem, introduction to Good Kings and Bad Kings (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; JSOTSup
393; ESHM 5; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 4 n. 2.
3
Which Grabbe sees as a useful piece of the puzzle to the historian explaining
why Sennacherib left without taking Jerusalem. Though it should be noted that Grabbe
(Of Mice and Dead Men, 139) does not relate Herodotus account with the angelic
attack in the 2 Kings account.
4
Ben Zvi has suggested that when quite different groups share a particular percep-
tion of an event, it may indicate historicity. See Grabbe, Reflections on the Discus-
sion, 308323 (here 316).
conclusions 193
into these sources to shape and mould them into his own narrative.5
This may especially be true in regards to the account of the kings after
Solomon as it was not based on large blocks of material like that found,
for instance, in the book of Samuel (the Ark Narrative, the History of
Davids Rise, the Succession Narrative etc.).6 Therefore, in much of the
book of Kings Dtr had to compose creatively and construct the narra-
tives without the aid of previously connected narratives.7 Noth himself
maintained that Dtr. needed to construct and compose by himself the
account of the monarchy from Solomon onwards but here he could at
least use the chronological system in the Books of the Chronicles to
provide a solid framework.8 This is not to demand that Dtr composed
the narratives of the post-Solomonic kings out of whole cloth, but
5
As many recent studies have argued. See Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with
Kingship, in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent
Research (ed. Albert de Pury, et al.; JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000); idem, The Trouble with Kings, 6180, 15364; Rmer, Le Deutronome la qute
des origines, 6598; and Joshua R. Porter, The Succession of Joshua, in Proclamation
and Presence (ed. John I. Durham and Joshua R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox 1970),
10232. McKenzie (The Book of Kings, 281307) clearly states his position that Dtr
had a greater hand in shaping, revising and organizing his source material than scholar-
ship as a whole, with its preoccupation with redaction, has credited him (302).
6
Leonhard Rost (Die berlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids [BWAT 3/6;
Stuggart, W. Kohlhammer, 1926]) is the name most associated with isolating these
blocks of material (before him many saw J and E as parallel sources in Samuel). Scholars
have vigorously disagreed upon the exact extent to each of these putative sources. E.g.,
the extent of the Ark Narrative [traditionally 1 Sam 47:1] is debated. Some suggest
2 Samuel 6 was part of it (e.g., Antony F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative: 1 Sam 46,
2 Sam 6: A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study [Missoula, Montana: Scholars
Press, 1975]). Some suggest it begins not with 2 Samuel 4 but with 2 Samuel 2 (e.g.,
Patrick D. Miller, and Jimmy J. M., Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of
the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977]).
The extent of all these sources is debated by scholars. The present writer believes the
difficulty in demarcating these sources exactly is evidence for Dtrs artistic ability and
status as a true author. This evidence would support Noths one author hypothesis.
As I have suggested elsewhere (Paul S. Evans, The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative
as Polyphonic Text, JSOT [forthcoming]), the fact that Dtr based these earlier narra-
tives on large blocks of material may account for the fact that there have been more
rhetorical-critical studies on Samuel than on Kings.
7
As Rmer and DePury (Deuteronomistic Historiography, 128) observe, Dtr
remains for [Noth] the real creator of the book(s) of Kings, using his sources selectively
and with great freedom. Similarly, McKenzie (The Book of Kings, 281307) observes
that in the book of Kings Noth ascribed a great deal of creativity to Dtr (284).
8
Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 77 (emphasis mine). Though at the same time he
makes reference to prophetic stories on which Dtr drew. E.g., Noth asserts, Dtr. had
access to the Isaiah cycle as a composite whole made up of separate elements (68).
194 chapter five
9
As McKenzie (The Book of Kings, 301) has noted, the followers of Noth have
overlooked Dtrs creativity in their search for sources and redactions. Scholarship has
claimed to follow Noth, when it has really been following Jepsen.
10
Contrary to Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 73) who argued that the Hezekiah
narrative is nothing but a transitory interlude.
11
In fact, Assyria is only mentioned in one verse (2 Kgs 23:29) after the Hezekiah
narratives of 2 Kings 1820. This may imply that Hezekiah freed Judah from Assyrian
rule according to the biblical narrative.
12
As Rmer and De Pury (Deuteronomistic Historiography, 138) assert, Any
historiographical enterprise implies at the same time a search for the past, therefore a
certain observation of historical reality, and an interpretation of this past in function
of the present, therefore a certain ideology.
13
Smelik (Distortion, 86) has suggested the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
purposefully contrasts Hezekiah and Zedekiah in order to explain why the Babylo-
nians conquered Jerusalem and the Assyrians did not. Curiously, Smelik argues for
an Isaian provenance for these narratives and that Hezekiah is purposefully portrayed
as a positive counterpart for his father Ahaz in Isaiah 7. Yet Smelik still argues that
Hezekiah is also a counterpart for Zedekiah, who is not mentioned in Isaiah. Can he
really have it both ways? Obviously only one of these foils for Hezekiah was original
and one contrived; regardless of how one concludes regarding the provenance. If
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is original to Kings, the Zedekiah foil could be
purposeful part of its composition, if original to Isaiah then the Ahaz foil is possible,
as the Isaiah-Ahaz narrative is not found in Kings. (As is well known the comparison
with Ahaz is based on his presentation in Isaiah 7 and his refusal to ask for a sign, the
location of his discussion with Isaiah [by the conduit of the pool], refusal to listen to
Isaiahs advice, etc.) The only other explanation would be that it was written for both
the books of Isaiah and Kings simultaneously, which seems unlikely.
conclusions 195
question of why Jerusalem was not delivered from the hand of Nebu-
chadnezzar as it was from the hand of Sennacherib in Hezekiahs day
was very pertinent.14 Through the lengthy speech of the Rabshakeh
the themes of trust ( )and deliverance ( )were highlighted.
It is only through trust in Yahweh that deliverance is provided. That
trust is seen expressed in proper hearing (), which Dtr spelled
out as hearing/obeying the Law of Moses (2 Kgs 18:12). In the nar-
rative, Hezekiah is seen first submitting to the foreign monarch (2 Kgs
18:1316), which would speak to Zedekiahs unwillingness to submit
to the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:20). As well, Hezekiah clearly trusts
in Yahweh (2 Kgs 18:5, etc.) as opposed to Zedekiah who did evil in
Yahwehs eyes (2 Kgs 24:19). This narrative stands as a message to the
exiles that it is only through trust in Yahweh expressed through Torah
observance that deliverance comes.
The coherence of the narrative supports Noths hypothesis that the
DH is a unified document. Dtr used historical sources and other tra-
ditional elements in his composition of this important narrative, as the
consultation and utilization of source documents are expressly men-
tioned in Kings.15 Reliable sources were clearly employed, as evidenced
by the correspondence of much of his narrative with extra-biblical
sources.16 It would seem logical to suppose that Dtr derived historical
information from his sources (such as: the devastation of the Judean
fortified cities, the amount of tribute paid, the mission of the Assyrian
emissaries, the role of a Cushite force, etc.). However, these sources
14
Laato compares the Hezekiah and Zedekiah narratives and finds many cor-
respondences. See Antti Laato, About Zion I Will Not Be Silent: The Book of Isaiah
as an Ideological Unity (ConBOT 44; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International,
1998), 122. Similar to Smelik, de Jong (Hizkiah en Zedekia, 135146) argues that
the Hezekiah narrative is based on Jeremiahs Zedekiah narrative. As noted above,
Hardmeier (Prophetie im Streit) takes it one step further suggesting that the Hezekiah
narrative is actually reflecting the events of 588 b.c.e. and has nothing to do with the
events of 701 b.c.e. See my critique above.
15
Cf. 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23;
10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 21, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:25; 23:28; 24:5. Of
course, reference to sources could be merely a rhetorical device to attempt to bolster the
reliability of the narrative. E.g., Noth called the Chroniclers citations literary conven-
tion which were valueless for reconstructing his actual sources. See The Chroniclers
History, (JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 53. Compare Eissfeldts remarks in
his The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. Ackroyd, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1965), 532.
16
See our comparative experiment above (pp. 196211).
196 chapter five
cannot be neatly dissected from his narrative into their original form
(as supposed by the Stade-Childs hypothesis) due to the creative role
Dtr played in composing his narrative.17 The use of other traditional
elements may be detected by the emphasis on trust in Yahweh in the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, which may have been drawn from the
book of Isaiah with its similar accent on such trust.18 Also, the well-
known resemblances of the Rabshakehs speech to biblical language
show the influence of other biblical books.19 The use of these traditional
elements shows Dtrs specific theological focus in this narrative.20 Our
acknowledgment that precise knowledge of the sources Dtr employed
cannot be determined at present should not be construed as our lack
of interest in source-critical questions or an anti-historical bias of the
present study. To the contrary, such issues are important to study, but
the methodology for achieving such ends needs to be called into ques-
tion. As McKenzie has asserted,
The time has come . . . to focus more on the creative process, that is to
investigate how Dtr combined and reshaped his sources and added mate-
rial of his own in order to make his points. I do not mean to suggest
ignoring source criticism where there are genuine tensions or contradic-
tions in the narrative. But we must keep the larger issues of form and the
unity of the Deuteronomistic History in mind and thus be cautious not
to multiply redactors at the slightest difference in language or content.21
17
E.g., the source Dtr relied on for the tribute amounts. It is doubtful such a source
would record the first person speech of Hezekiah, with its references to sin and
forgiveness and employ the key word ( to send) which unites it so well with
the rest of the narrative.
18
As previously noted, in Proto-Isaiah ( to trust) occurs often in the context of
either trusting Egypt or Yahweh (cf. Isa 12:2; 26:3, 4; 30:12; 31:1; 32:9, 10, 11; besides
the parallels to 2 Kings 1819 in Isa 36:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15). In Isa 12:2 and Isa 26:34
the reader is encouraged to trust in Yahweh (either by example [Isa 12:2 and 26:3]
or by direct command [Isa 26:4]). However, in both Isa 30:12 and Isa 31:1 Judah is
castigated for its trust in Egypt. Given the rarity of the use of ( to trust) in the
book of Kings and these important occurrences in Proto-Isaiah, we detect the influence
of the latter upon the former here.
19
As highlighted by Ben Zvi (Who Wrote the Speech, 7992) and Rudman
(Rabshakeh, 100110).
20
Kenik (Design for Kingship, 199) has argued that the Dtr compositional technique
consists of 1) adapting a known literary genre as a mould for his composition; and
2) employing traditional elements to function as building blocks for the presentation
of a specific theological focus. She labels his technique traditional composition.
21
McKenzie, The Book of Kings, 301.
conclusions 197
22
As Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 11) asserted, the closest parallels [with Dtr]
are those Hellenistic and Roman historians who use older accounts, mostly unacknowl-
edged, to write a history not of their own time but of the more or less distant past.
23
Henry R. Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus (PM 23; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986), 8.
24
As Polzin has pointed out the priority of synchrony over diachrony is not in
rank but only in operation. Thus we are still allowed to call both approaches truly
complementary: each must eventually take the others conclusions into account. See
Robert Polzin, Literary and Historical Criticism of the Bible: A Crisis in Scholarship,
in Orientation by Disorientation: Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical Literary Criti-
cism, Presented in Honor of William A. Beardslee (ed. Richard A. Spencer; PTMS 35;
Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 104. This progression of analysis (with rhetorical preceding
source analysis) is suggested by Edelman (Doing History, 22) when she outlines the
method a historian of ancient Israel (Syro-Palestine) should follow.
25
Immerwahr, Form and Thought, 8.
26
Long, Introduction, 5.
198 chapter five
In conclusion, it would appear that the main reason for the traditional
source delineations has been the (mis)reading of the Assyrian sources
coupled with a desire to find some authentic history in the biblical text.
When the Assyrian annals were understood to suggest an unequivo-
cal victory for Sennacherib, it behoved critics to discount the contrary
conclusion in the biblical text. However, in order to hold on to some
historicity of the biblical account, source criticism was employed to
divide the narrative into reliable and unreliable portions.27 The obses-
sion with seeking historical plausibility in biblical narratives overrode
the sagacity of treating them first as literature and only secondarily as
references to external events.
The historical reconstruction of Sennacheribs invasion into the
Levant has been unduly influenced by the Stade-Childs hypothesis.
The theory that Sennacherib actually invaded the Levant twice is
based solely on source-critical conclusions.28 The discounting of the
role of the Egyptians referred to in 2 Kgs 19:9 depends on the source
delineations that consider this a separate parallel account. Finally,
the disregarding of the entire biblical account, other than four verses
(2 Kgs 18:1316the putative Account A) is based on the Stade-Childs
source delineations. Yet this hypothesis is a weak foundation on which
to lay a historical reconstruction.
In light of this study, it must be asserted that traditional source criti-
cism is an inadequate method for examining a text for use in historical
reconstruction. Previous source-critical work often neglected to give the
biblical texts a fair hearing, but instead too hastily divided the text into
discrete sources.29 While it was once believed that this procedure assisted
in getting to the kernel of historical truth, in reality, it has impeded the
27
As Lemche (Problems of Reconstructing, 15067) notes, Historians began
in the early nineteenth century to develop methods of source criticism that enabled
[scholars]or so they believedto make a distinction between real information and
secondary expansion (150). This desire has not abated in historical critical work to
this day. However, in the most recent work scholars have become increasingly sceptical
to the point where a nineteenth century critic like Wellhausen, radically critical in his
day, would now be viewed as a maximalist.
28
Neither the extant biblical text, nor epigraphic or archaeological evidence suggests
a second campaign.
29
Part of the impetus for such neglect was probably a subtle privileging of the ANE
sources and evidence (or at least the initial reading of that evidence).
conclusions 199
30
As Gary N. Knoppers (I Chronicles [AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004], 126)
asserts, the methodology of source criticism needs to be distanced from the discipline
of historical reconstruction. The two are related but discrete enterprises.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackroyd, Peter R. The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah.
Pages 24759 in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Lit-
erature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrm. Edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 31. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1984.
. Isaiah 3639: Structure and Function. Pages 321 in Von Kanaan bis Kerala.
Edited by W. C. Delsman and J. P. M. van der Ploeg. Alter Orient und Altes Testa-
ment 211. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1982.
Aharoni, Yohanan. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Begin-
nings to the End of the First Temple Period. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
Albertz, Rainer. Die Exilszeit als Ernstfall fr eine historische Rekonstruktion ohne
biblische Texte: Die neubabylonischen Knigsinschriften als Primrquelle. Pages
2239 in Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology. Edited by
Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
278; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998.
. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Old Testament Library.
2 vols. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
Albright, William Foxwell. New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and the His-
tory of Israel and Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 130
(1953): 811.
Alonso Schkel, Luis. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11. Rome: Editrice
pontificio Istituto biblico, 1988.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1981.
. A Literary Approach to the Bible. Commentary 60 (1975): 7077.
Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001.
Auffret, Pierre. Yahve Regne: tude structurelle du Psaume 93. Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 10109.
Auld, A. Graeme. Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bibles
Kings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Bahat, D. The Fullers Field and the Conduit of the Upper Pool. Eretz-Israel 20
(1989): 253255.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-
ment: Supplement Series 70. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997.
. Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative. Vetus
Testamentum 30 (1980): 154173.
Barstad, Hans M. The Strange Fear of the Bible: Some Reflections on the Bibliophobia
in Recent Ancient Israelite Historiography. Pages 12027 in Leading Captivity Cap-
tive: The Exile as History and Ideology. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 278; European Seminar in Historical
Methodology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Wissenschaftliche Monographien
zum Alten und Neuen Testament 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1977.
Barton, John. Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common
Ground? Pages 315 in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in
Honour of Michael D. Goulder. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David
E. Orton. Biblical Interpretation Series 8. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
202 bibliography
Budde, Karl. Jesajas Erleben: Eine gemeinverstandliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des
Propheten, (Kap. 6, 19, 6). Gotha: L. Klotz, 1928.
Burrows, Millar. The Conduit of the Upper Pool. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 70 (1958): 22127.
Camp, Ludger. Hiskija und Hiskijabild: Analyse und Interpretation von 2 Kn 1820.
Mnsteraner Theologische Abhandlunger 9. Altenberge: Telos, 1990.
Campbell, Antony F. Martin Noth and the Deuteronomistic History. Pages 3162
in The History of Israels Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven
L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
. The Ark Narrative: 1 Sam 46, 2 Sam 6: A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical
Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 16. Missoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1975.
Carlson, R. A. lie lHoreb. Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 416439.
Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. Studies in Biblical Theology. Second
Series 3. London: SCM, 1967.
Clements, Ronald E. The Prophet as an Author: The Case of the Isaiah Memoir.
Pages 89101 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Proph-
ecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2000.
. Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiahs
Themes. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985): 95113.
. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy
in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1976.
Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. Anchor Bible 10. Garden City: Doubleday, 2001.
. Sennacheribs Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice? Biblical Archaeology Review
27 (2001): 40.
Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. Anchor Bible 11. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1988.
Cohen, Chaim. Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Saq.
Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979): 3248.
Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000.
Collins, John J. The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand
Rapids: Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.
Conkin, Paul K. and Roland N. Stromberg. The Heritage and Challenge of History. New
York: Dodd & Mead, 1971.
Cross, Frank M. A Reconsideration of the Judean Restoration. Journal of Biblical
Literature 94 (1975): 118.
. The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic
History. Pages 27489 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
. The Structure of the Deuteronomic History. Pages 924 in Perspectives in Jew-
ish Learning. Edited by J. M. Rosenthal. Annual of the College of Jewish Studies 3.
Chicago: College of Jewish Studies, 1968.
Cryer, Frederick H. Of Epistemology, Northwest-Semitic Epigraphy and Irony: The
bytdwd/House of David Inscription Revisited. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 69 (1996): 317.
Dalley, Stephanie. Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History
from Uzziah to Manasseh. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004):
387401.
204 bibliography
Evans, Carl D. Judahs Foreign Policy from Hezekiah to Josiah. Pages 15778 in
Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans,
William W. Hallo, and John B. White. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.
Evans, Paul. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative as Polyphonic Text. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, 33 3(2009): 335358.
. Sennacheribs 701 Invasion into Judah: What Saith the Scriptures? Pages 5777
in The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies. Edited
by Patricia G. Kirkpatrick and Timothy Goltz. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-
ment Studies (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series) 489.
London: T&T Clark, 2008.
. Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of the Chroni-
clers Theology. Biblica 85 (2004): 545558.
Ewald, Heinrich. Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus. Gttingen: Dieterich,
184359.
Exum, J. Cheryl. Why Virtual History? Alternatives, Counterfactuals, and the Bible.
Pages 17 in Virtual History and the Bible. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum. Leiden: Brill,
2000.
Exum, J. Cheryl, and David J. A. Clines. The New Literary Criticism. Pages 1125
in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and
David J. A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament: Supplement Series 143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Fewell, Danna N. Sennacheribs Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18.1319.37. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 34 (1986): 7990.
Fokkelman, Jan P. Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox 1999.
Frahm, Eckart. Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv fr Orientforschung:
Beiheft 26. Horn: Selbstverlag des Instituts fr Orientalistik der Universitt Wein,
Druck F. Berger & Shne, 1997.
Freedman, David N. The Broken Construct Chain. Pages 33941 in Pottery, Poetry,
and Prophecy. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Repr. from Biblica 53 (1972):
53436.
Friedman, Richard E. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deu-
teronomistic and Priestly Works. Harvard Semitic Monographs 22. Chico, Calif.:
Scholars Press, 1981.
Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary. 1st English language ed.;
Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Galil, G. Sennacherib Versus Hezekiah: A New Look at the Assyrian Campaign to
the West. Zion 53 (1988): 112.
Gallagher, William R. Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah: New Studies. Studies in the
History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 18. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by
A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Claredon, 1910.
Geyer, John B. 2 Kings 18:1416 and the Annals of Sennacherib. Vetus Testamentum
21 (1971): 60406.
Goldberg, Jeremy. Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Cen-
tury Biblical Chronology. Biblica 80 (1999): 36090.
Gonalves, Francolino J. Lexpdition de Sennachrib en Palestine dans la littrature
hbraque ancienne. Etudes bibliques 7; Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste de
lUniversit catholique de Louvain. Paris: Gabalda, 1986.
Grabbe, Lester L. Introduction to Good Kings and Bad Kings. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 393; European Seminar
in Historical Methodology 5. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
206 bibliography
, ed. Good Kings and Bad Kings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 393; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 5. New York:
T&T Clark, 2005.
. Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacheribs Campaign in
701 b.c.e. Pages 11940 in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in
701 b.c.e. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4. London:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
. Reflections on the Discussion. Pages 30823 in Like a Bird in a Cage: The
Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical
Methodology 4. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
, ed. Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical
Methodology 4. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
, ed. Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic
Period. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 317; European
Seminar in Historical Methodology 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
, ed. Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 278; European Seminar in Historical
Methodology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
. The Exile Under the Theodolite: Historiography as Triangulation. Pages 80100
in Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology. Edited by Lester L.
Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 278; European
Seminar in Historical Methodology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
. Ezra-Nehemiah. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1998.
, ed. Can a History of Israel Be Written? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 245; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 1. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Gray, John. 1 & 2 Kings. 2d, fully rev. ed. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1970.
Grayson, A. K. Knigslisten und Chroniken. Pages 86135 in vol. 6 of Reallexikon
der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling, B. Meissner, and D. O. Edzard. 10 vols.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928.
. Problematic Battles in Mesopotamian History. Pages 33742 in Studies in
Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 25, 1965. Edited
by H. G. Gttersbock and Th. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1965.
Gunn, David M., and Danna N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford; Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Haag, H. La campagne de Sennachrib contre Jrusalem en 701. Revue biblique 58
(1951): 34859.
Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholar-
ship: Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Hallo, William W. Jerusalem Under Hezekiah: An Assyriological Perspective. Pages
3650 in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: Continuum, 1999.
. Sumerian Historiography. Pages 920 in History Historiography and Interpreta-
tion: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by Moshe Weinfeld and
Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993.
Hallo, William W. and K. Lawson Younger. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
Handy, Lowell K. Hezekiahs Unlikely Reform. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 11115.
bibliography 207
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 19261965.
Joon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka.
2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/12. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblio, 1991.
Kaiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja; Kapitel 1339. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 18. Gt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.
Kenik, Helen A. Design for Kingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in
1 Kings 3:415. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 69. Chico, Calif.:
Scholars Press, 1983.
King, L. W. ed. Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, b.c.
860825. London: Longmans, 1915.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century b.c.e.
and Deity dod as Dead as the Dodo. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
76 (1997): 2944.
. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100650 b.c.). 2d ed. Warminster: Aris
& Phillips, 1986.
Klement, Herbert H. Modern Literary-Critical Methods and the Historicity of the Old
Testament. Pages 43959 in Israels Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Isra-
elite Historiography. Edited by V. Philips Long. Sources for Biblical and Theological
Study 7. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Klostermann, A. Die Bcher Samuelis und der Knige. Edited by von Hermann Strack
and Otto Zckler. Kurzgefasster Kommentar. Munich: Beck, 1887.
Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles. Anchor Bible 12. New York: Doubleday, 2004.
. Introduction to Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuterono-
mistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources for
Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
. The Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments and Detours. Pages 20735
in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited
by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999.
. Prayer and Propaganda: The Dedication of Solomons Temple and the Deuter-
onomists Program. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 22954.
. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual
Monarchies. Harvard Semitic Monographs 5253. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993.
. History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms. Pages 178203 in The Chroni-
cler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven
L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 238.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.
Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson.
4 vols. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 19942000.
Konkel, August H. The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah. Vetus
Testamentum 43 (1993): 46282.
. Hezekiah in Biblical Tradition. Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary,
1987.
Kooij, Arie van der. The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 1819): A
Sample of Ancient Historiography. Pages 10719 in Past, Present, Future: The
Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor and
H. F. Van Rooy. Oudtestamentische Studin 44. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
. Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr. Zeitschrift
des deutschen Palstina-Vereins 102 (1986): 93109.
Kuenen, Abraham. De profeten en de profetie onder Isral: historisch-dogmatische studie.
Leiden: P. Engels, 1975.
bibliography 209
Laato, Antti. About Zion I Will Not Be Silent: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological
Unity. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 44. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International, 1998.
. Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions
of Sennacherib. Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 198226.
. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701 b.c. Scandanavian Journal of the Old
Testament 2 (1987): 4968.
Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1971.
Le Moyne, J. Les deux ambassades de Sennachrib Jrusalem; Recherches sur
lvolution dune tradition. Pages 14953 in Melanges bibliques rdigs en lhonneur
de Andr Robert. Paris: Bloud [et] Gay, 1957.
Leeuwen, Cornelis van. Sanchrib devant Jrusalem. Old Testament Studies 14 (1965):
245272.
Lemaire, Andre. The Tel Dan as a Piece of Royal Historiography. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 81 (1998): 318.
Lemche, Niels Peter. On the Problems of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite
(Palestinian) History. Pages 15067 in Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sen-
nacherib in 701 b.c.e. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament: Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology
4. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.
. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society. The Biblical Seminar 5. Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1990.
Lemche, Niels Peter and Thomas L. Thompson. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the
Light of Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64 (1994): 322.
Levine, Louis D. Preliminary Remarks on the Historical Inscriptions of Sennacherib.
Pages 5875 in History, Historiography and Interpretation. Edited by Hayim Tadmor
and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.
Lewy, J. Sanherib und Hizkia. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 31 (1928): 15657.
Liverani, Mario. Israels History and the History of Israel. London: Equinox, 2005.
Liwak, Rdiger. Die Rettung Jerusalems im Jahr 701 vor Christus: zum Verhltnis
und Verstndnis historischer und theologischer Aussagen. Zeitschrift fr Theologie
und Kirche 83 (1986): 13766.
Long, Burke O. 2 Kings. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 10. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991.
. Historical Narrative and the Fictionalizing Imagination. Vetus Testamentum
35 (1985): 40516.
. 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. Forms of the Old Testa-
ment Literature 9. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984.
Long, V. Philips. Introduction to Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argu-
ment, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel. Edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker,
and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.
. The Art of Biblical History. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5. Lei-
cester: Apollos, 1996.
. The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence.
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 118. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Long, V. Philips, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham, eds. Windows into Old
Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.
Longacre, Robert E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and
Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 3948. 2d ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 2003.
210 bibliography
Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1986.
Miller, Patrick D., and Jimmy J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment
of the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1977.
Moberly, R. Walter L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 3234.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 22. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1983.
Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951.
. Archival Data in the Book of Kings. Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934):
4652.
Muilenburg, James. Form Criticism and Beyond. Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(1969): 118.
Mulder, Martin J. 1 Kings 111. Translated by John Vriend. Historical Commentary
on the Old Testament. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1998.
Mullen, E. Theodore. Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despolia-
tion of the Treasuries. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 23148.
Naaman, Nadav. Updating the Messages: Hezekiahs Second Prophetic Story (2 Kings
19.9b35) and the Community of Babylonian Deportees. Pages 20020 in Like a
Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 363; European Seminar
in Historical Methodology 4. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
. New Light on Hezekiahs Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b35). Biblica 81
(2000): 393402.
. The Debated Historicity of Hezekiahs Reform in the Light of Historical and
Archaeological Research. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107
(1995): 17995.
. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 65 (1995): 3753.
. Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria. Tel Aviv 21 (1994): 235, 24547.
. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the
West. Pages 8098 in Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near
Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan
and Israel Ephal. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991.
. Sennacheribs Letter to God on his Campaign to Judah. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 214 (1974): 2539.
. Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps. Vetus
Testamentum 29 (1979): 6186.
Nelson, Richard D. Review of Lyle M. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God.
Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 14142.
. Review of Mark OBrien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassess-
ment. Biblica 71 (1990): 567.
. The Anatomy of the Book of Kings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
40 (1988): 3948.
. First and Second Kings. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987.
. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament: Supplement Series 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
Niccacci, Alviero. Analysis of Biblical Narrative. Pages 17597 in Biblical Hebrew
and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics, 1994.
. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament: Supplement Series 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
212 bibliography
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
. Exodus. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1962.
. berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Schriften der Knigsberger Gelehrten Gesell-
schaft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943.
Oded, Bustenay. Judah and the Exile. Pages 43588 in Israelite and Judean History.
Edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
Oppenheim, A. Leo et al. eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institude, 1956.
Parker, Simon B. Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscrip-
tions? Vetus Testamentum 50 (2000): 35778.
. Review of Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the
Deuteronomic History, pt 2: I Samuel. Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990): 11315.
Patrick, Simon. A Commentary Upon the Historical Books of the Old Testament. 6th.
ed. 2 vols. London: A. Millar, 1765.
Peckham, Brian. The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Harvard Semitic
Monographs 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Person, Raymond F. II Kings 1820 and Isaiah 3639: A Text Critical Case Study in
the Redaction History of the Book of Isaiah. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 111 (1999): 37379.
. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 252. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.
Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic
History. Part Three: 2 Samuel, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington;
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993.
. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History:
Part Two: 1 Samuel. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
. 1 Samuel: Biblical Studies and the Humanities. Religious Studies Review 15
(1989): 297306.
. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History:
Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. New
York: Seabury, 1980.
. Literary and Historical Criticism of the Bible: A Crisis in Scholarship. Pages
99114 in Orientation by Disorientation: Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical
Literary Criticism, Presented in Honor of William A. Beardslee. Edited by Richard A.
Spencer. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 35. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.
Porter, Joshua R. The Succession of Joshua. Pages 10232 in Proclamation and Pres-
ence. Edited by John I. Durham and J. Roy Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970.
Powell, Mark Allan. What is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New
Testament Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Preminger, Alex, Frank J. Warnke, and O. B. Hardison, eds. Princeton Encyclopedia of
Poetry and Poetics. Enl. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.
Prinsloo, Willem S. Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men? Biblica 76 (1995): 219
28.
Pritchard, James Bennett. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Provan, Iain W. In the Stable with the Dwarves: Testimony, Interpretation, Faith
and the History of Israel. Pages 281319 in Windows into Old Testament History:
Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel. Edited by V. Philips Long,
David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.
. Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate About the Composi-
tion of the Deuteronomistic History. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 172. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988.
bibliography 213
Provan, Iain W., Philips V. Long, and Tremper Longman. A Biblical History of Israel.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Pury, Albert de and Thomas Rmer. Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History
of Research and Debated Issues. Pages 24143 in Israel Constructs its History: Deu-
teronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas
Rmer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supple-
ment Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Rad, Gerhard von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh: Oliver
and Boyd, 1966.
. Old Testament Theology I: The Theology of Israels Historical Traditions. Translated
by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
. Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Studies in Biblical Theol-
ogy 9. London: SCM Press, 1953.
Rawlinson, Henry. Outlines of Assyrian History, Collected from the Cuneiform Inscrip-
tions. XXIVTH Annual Report of the Royal Asiatic Society (1852): XVXLVI.
Rawlinson, George. The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. New
York: Dodd, 1964.
. Assyrian Antiquities. Athenaeum 1243 (23 August 1851), 90203.
Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1992.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja. Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984):
295320.
Revell, Ernest J. The Designation of the Individual. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis
and Theology 14. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Meth-
uen, 1983.
Robertson, David A. The Old Testament and the Literary Critic. Guides to Biblical
Scholarship: Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Rogers, Robert W. A History of Babylonia and Assyria. 6th ed. 2 vols. New York:
Abingdon, 1915.
Rmer, Thomas. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and
Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
. Le Deutronome la qute des origines. Pages 6598 in Le Pentateuque: Dbats
et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. Lectio Divina 151. Paris: ditions du Cerf,
1992.
Rose, Martin. Deuteronomistic Ideology and Theology of the Old Testament. Pages
42455 in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent
Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Rmer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Jour-
nal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000.
Rost, Leonhard. Die berlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Beitrge zur Wis-
senschaft vom Alten Testament 3/6. Stuggart: Kohlhammer, 1926.
Rowley, Harold Henry. Hezekiahs Reform and Rebellion. Bulletin of the John Rylands
University Library of Manchester 44 (1962): 395431.
Rudman, Dominic. Is the Rabshakeh Also Among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study
of 2 Kings XVIII 1735. Vetus Testamentum 50 (2000): 10010.
Ruprecht, Eberhard. Die ursprngliche Komposition der Hiskia-Jesaja-Erzhlungen
und ihre Umstrukturierung durch den Verfasser des deuteronomistischen Geschich-
tswerkes. Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 87 (1990): 3366.
anda, Albert. Die Bcher der Knige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament I.
Munster: Aschendorffscher, 1912.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklas-
sischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie. Gtersloh: Gtersloher, 1972.
214 bibliography
Ezekiel Zechariah
4:2 161 nn. 74, 7778 10:10 56 n. 70
4:3 161 n. 74 10:11 57 n. 77
17:17 161 n. 78 12:2 161 n. 74
19:4 80 n. 130
20:27 56 n. 67 Revelation
20:39 115 n. 103 18:3 152
21:27 161 n. 78
AUTHOR INDEX
Herodotus 12, 4, 7, 10, 16, 20, 25, 79, Nineveh 3, 67, 17, 6061, 76, 79, 100,
164, 182185, 192, 197 104106, 176, 181, 188189
Hezekiah 1, 36, 910, 1220, 23,
25, 27, 29, 3555, 5760, 6274, Pelusium 12, 16, 164, 184
7680, 8285, 87119, 121135, Prophecy fulfillment 5, 22, 5455,
139151, 153157, 159165, 167170, 76, 81, 108109, 116, 164165,
172176, 178, 181183, 185188, 173
190196
Historical 12, 4, 69, 1113, 1517, Rabshakeh 6, 1113, 18, 4041,
19, 21, 2439, 4243, 4748, 51, 5657, 59, 65, 76, 8283, 96,
54, 59, 66, 6869, 7879, 83, 107, 103105, 107, 111, 113119,
113, 135, 137, 151, 160, 162, 165, 122123, 125126, 129130, 132,
167175, 177185, 187, 189192, 140, 151159, 173, 180181,
194199 195196
230 subject index
Rhetorical criticism 2837, 53, 8283, Siege 3, 5, 10, 1519, 29, 41, 47,
85, 8789, 91, 93, 95, 9798, 101, 103, 57, 9697, 129, 151, 157, 160165,
105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 175177, 179, 183184, 186191
121123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133135, Source criticism 69, 1115, 1920,
137, 139, 156, 165, 181, 191, 193, 195, 2730, 3241, 43, 45, 4749, 51,
197, 199 5355, 57, 5961, 6365, 67, 69,
71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 8385, 87,
Sennacherib 120, 25, 27, 29, 3550, 96, 106, 121, 123, 133136, 139,
5271, 7381, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, 156, 175, 191, 196199
97100, 102116, 118119, 121124,
126127, 129136, 139151, 153165, Tribute 35, 9, 15, 19, 29, 46, 59,
167168, 171172, 174179, 181196, 63, 6770, 73, 78, 85, 133134,
198 143, 146151, 155, 157, 164165,
Shebnah 4344, 7273, 84, 121, 123, 175, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192,
132134, 155 195196