You are on page 1of 245

The Invasion of Sennacherib in the

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.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

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

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.


Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,


translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by


Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands


To Caitlin





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

Chapter One A Source-Critical Approach to the Problem ....... 39


I. Previous Source-Critical Approaches ................................... 39
A. Change in Style .................................................................. 39
B. Divergent Perspectives ...................................................... 45
C. Differences in Characterization ...................................... 50
D. Interruptions ...................................................................... 54
E. Tensions or Logical Inconsistencies ............................... 58
F. Isolation of Sources ........................................................... 60
G. Duplications in the Narrative .......................................... 62
H. Appraisal of Previous Source-Critical Approaches ..... 63
II. A Fresh Source-Critical Proposal .......................................... 64
III. Conclusion ................................................................................ 81

Chapter Two A Rhetorical-Critical Approach to the Problem ...... 87


I. Rhetorical-Critical Analysis ................................................... 87
A. The Structure of the Hezekiah Macro-Narrative ......... 88
B. The Structure of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative .... 101
C. Conclusions on the Structure of the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib Narrative ....................................................... 110
D. The Integrity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative ..... 111
II. The Ramifications of Rhetorical Analysis for
Source Analysis ........................................................................ 133
viii contents

Chapter Three Re-Reading the Hezekiah-Sennacherib


Narrative .............................................................................................. 139
I. A Close Reading ....................................................................... 139
A. Sennacherib Invades ......................................................... 141
B. Playing Tribute .................................................................. 143
C. The Visit of the Assyrian Emissaries ............................. 151
D. The Assyrian Threats ........................................................ 155
E. Hezekiah and Isaiah Respond ......................................... 157
F. The Second Assyrian Delegation .................................... 158
G. Another Prophetic Response ........................................... 160
II. Siege Language ......................................................................... 161
III. The Denouement ..................................................................... 162
IV. Summary ................................................................................... 164

Chapter Four Using 2 Kings 1819 in Historical


Reconstruction ..................................................................................... 167
I. Historical Method ................................................................... 167
II. A Comparative Experiment: Assyrian Sources and
2 Kings 1819 .......................................................................... 174
A. The Egyptian/Ethiopian Expedition .............................. 177
B. The Mission of Assyrian Emissaries .............................. 179
C. The Defeat of the Assyrian Army .................................. 181
III. Conclusion ............................................................................... 185

Appendix
Table 16 .......................................................................................... 186

Chapter Five Conclusions ................................................................ 191


I. Summary ................................................................................... 191
II. Implications .............................................................................. 192
A. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative as Part of
the DH ................................................................................. 192
B. The Value of Source-Critical Approaches ..................... 197

Bibliography .......................................................................................... 201

Scripture Index ..................................................................................... 217


Author Index ........................................................................................ 225
Subject Index ........................................................................................ 229
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis which was


presented to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and the Biblical Depart-
ment of the Toronto School of Theology at the University of Toronto
in 2008. The completion of this study leaves me indebted to many.
First I wish to thank those who contributed to the financing of my
study. I am grateful for a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada, an Ontario Graduate
Scholarship, a Doctoral Entrance Scholarship from Wycliffe College
and several scholarships from the Baptist Housing Foundation of Brit-
ish Columbia. I am also thankful for the privilege of ministering at
Hosanna Evangelical Free church in Mississauga, Ontario throughout
my doctoral studies and for the opportunity to teach as an adjunct at
Tyndale University College in Toronto.
I would also thank my father (Randy Evans), who when I was a child
woke me up in the early hours of the morning to memorize Bible verses
(before breakfast!) and instilled in me an enduring passion for the Bible.
My mother (Sandy Evans) deserves recognition for her loving support
and unqualified endorsement of the pursuit of my dreams. Tyler F.
Williams should be thanked for getting me hooked on the OT/HB and
encouraging me to pursue graduate studies. I am grateful to HEFC for
allowing me to cut back on some of my pastoral duties during my final
year with them in order to allow extra time to work on this project. My
former institution, Ambrose University College, should be mentioned
for granting me course reductions in order to facilitate the dissertations
completion. At Ambrose, Mrs. Diane Ayer was remarkably efficient in
procuring many materials through interlibrary and even allowed me
to borrow a volume in the reserve collection (despite Sandys ban on
such nefarious deeds).
I am extremely grateful for Mark J. Boda who supervised my research,
patiently read many drafts of this work, and offered invaluable criti-
cism. His untiring direction, prompt feedback, and genuine interest
in my work, was a constant encouragement throughout the process. I
am deeply thankful for what he has taught me, and his genuine friend-
ship and kindness towards me have been a true blessing in my life.
J. Glen Taylor should also be thanked for his helpful suggestions and
x acknowledgements

comments on drafts of this work, and for encouraging me early on to


pursue this area of research. I would like to thank all of my teachers at
the Toronto School of Theology who contributed to my development,
especially Michael Kolarcik, John McLaughlin, Marion Taylor, Patricia
Dutcher-Wals, and the late Gerald T. Sheppard and Brian Peckham.
I also wish to thank Prof. Hans Barstad for accepting my manuscript
into the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum.
Above all I would like to honour my wife, Caitlin, who sacrificed more
than anyone else to see this dissertation completed. Moving across the
country at literally a moments notice, living frugally throughout the
lean years of my studies, shouldering more than her share of financial
and family duties, and risking her thriving career to allow me to the
chance to pursue my dreams are only the tip of the iceberg of debt I have
incurred to this wonderful woman. Her selfless love, understanding,
strength and patience made all the difference in my life and I dedicate
this work affectionately to her.

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

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft


CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CC Continental Commentaries
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series
COHP Contributions to Oriental History and Philology
COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo and
K. Lawson Younger. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997
Ebib Etudes bibliques
EgT Eglise et thologie
EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
EI Eretz-Israel
ESHM European Seminar on Historical Methodology
FCI Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
GKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Trans-
lated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford, 1910
GtS Grazer theologische Studien
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and
edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols.
Leiden, 19941999
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs
HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
Hist. Herodotus, Histories
HS Hebrew Studies
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke
and M. OConnor. Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
abbreviations xiii

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies


Joon Joon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and
revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/12.
Rome, 1991
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series
LD Lectio Divina
LEH -2 Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the Septuagint, IIII on CD-ROM.
Accordance Version 7.4.1. 2007. Print ed.: Johan Lust, Erik
Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the Septuagint, IIII (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell-
schaft, 1992/1996).
LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies
LQ Lutheran Quarterly
MTA Mnsteraner Theologische Abhandlunger
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NEASB Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin
NYRB The New York Review of Books
OIP Oriental Institute Publications
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Old Testament Studies
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studin
PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs
PM Philological Monographs
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
RB Revue biblique
RelSRev Religious Studies Review
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al.
Berlin, 1928
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies
SB Subsidia Biblica
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study
SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
xiv abbreviations

SzB Schriften zur Bible


TA Tel Aviv
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TSHB Textpragmatische Studien zur Hebrischen Bibel
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum: Supplement Series
War Josephus, Wars of the Jews
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins
ZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
INTRODUCTION

The biblical account of Sennacheribs 701 b.c.e. invasion of Judah


found in 2 Kings 1819 has been the subject of tremendous scholarly
activity. Since Sennacheribs invasion itself is strongly emphasized in
the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (hereafter OT/HB), being recorded
in three different books (Kings, Isaiah and Chronicles) and alluded to
in oracles from Isaiah and others, this scholarly attention is biblical.1
However, the interest in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib episode is probably
most heightened by the extra-biblical accounts of this clash found in
Assyrian Annals.2 Yet despite this welcome abundance of relevant
material, a consensus regarding the reconstruction of the historical
events behind these texts eludes modern scholarship.

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

The contents of the Assyrian annals can be outlined as follows.


The coastal cities of Phoenicia surrendered to Sennacherib without
a battle. Those who did not submit were then attacked. After quell-
ing the rebellion in Ashkelon, Sennacherib replaced their king with
a pro-Assyrian patrician. An Egyptian force was defeated at Eltekeh
and Ekron was besieged and captured. Sennacherib then chronicles
his manoeuvres against Hezekiahs Judah, noting that he besieged and
conquered 46 fortified cities and other towns (describing the military
tactics employed), claiming 200,150 exiles as spoil. Regarding direct
military action against Hezekiah, the Assyrian annals famously state
[Hezekiah] himself I enclosed in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird
in a cage.11 The account ends with a long description of the booty/
tribute paid to Sennacherib after he returned to Nineveh.
Shortly after the Assyrian inscriptions came to light, problems in
correlating them with the biblical accounts were recognized. Both
texts were thought to agree in their references to the siege of Jerusalem
and the tribute paid by Hezekiah (with the identical amount of gold
listed in both accounts); however, the disagreement between the two
texts regarding the outcome of Sennacheribs invasion was striking.
According to Sennacherib it was an unequivocal Assyrian victory,
while according to the OT/HB the assault on Judah eventuated in an
Assyrian defeat (2 Kgs 19:35).
The discrepancies between the Assyrian annals and the biblical
account were initially thought to be entirely due to the Assyrian
tendency to omit any defeats from their records.12 Still, correlating

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

Hezekiahs payment of tribute (acknowledged in both the biblical and


Assyrian sources) with the Assyrian defeat recorded in 2 Kings was
problematic. Therefore, various theories were employed to fit the biblical
and extrabiblical evidence into a plausible historical reconstruction.
The first to put forth such a theory was G. Rawlinson, who posited
an invasion by Sennacherib in 700 b.c.e., during which Hezekiah sur-
rendered, followed by another invasion, two years later in 698 to which
2 Kgs 18:1719:37 refers.13 Rawlinson surmised this second invasion
purely on the biblical evidence as he noted that there is nothing in
the Assyrian records to suggest this second invasion.14 J. Wellhausen
trod a different path and saw only one campaign by Sennacherib into
the Levant.15 He did not see the biblical account as contradictory,
but followed it in the main, concluding that Sennacheribs campaign
ended when Sennacheribs army was devastated by a still unex-
plained catastrophe which is reflected in both the biblical account
and Herodotus.16
B. Stades analysis of 2 Kings broke new ground and was largely
followed by later scholarship.17 Stade discerned in the Kings account
two different sources, subsequently labelled Accounts A and B. Stade
viewed 2 Kgs 18:1316 (Account A) as a distinct source which drew
from Jerusalem annals.18 This source gives an account of Hezekiahs

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

capitulation to Sennacheribsomething we do not find in any other


biblical account (Hezekiahs capitulation is not found in the otherwise
parallel narrative in Isaiah 3637).19 Stade viewed 2 Kgs 18:1719:37
(Account B) as a separate source which gives an account of an Assyrian
army dispatched to besiege Jerusalem and concludes with the destruc-
tion of the Assyrian army. The fact that Assyrian emissaries are sent
(Account B) after tribute was paid (Account A) was viewed as clear
evidence that the present biblical narrative must be subdivided into
two discrete sources.20
Within this B account, however, Stade discerned two discrete units,
subsequently labelled B1 and B2. Stade detected these units first on the
basis of the three different oracles within the account which all predict
that the Assyrian monarch will return to Assyria (2 Kgs 19:7, 28b, 33).
What was problematic to Stade about these oracles was that neither of
the subsequent oracles made reference to the oracle(s) that preceded
them.21 Perceived contradictions within the account also suggested
this division. The first prophecy of Isaiah predicts that Sennacherib
will hear a rumour and then return to his own land (2 Kgs 19:7). This
prophecy is not fulfilled in the narrative as it now stands, since it is the
destruction of his army (2 Kings 19:35) and not a rumour which causes
Sennacherib to return.22 Therefore, B1 proceeds from 2 Kgs 18:1719:9a
(19:9a fulfils the prophecy of 19:7when a rumour regarding Egypt is

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

heard) followed by 2 Kgs 19:3637 when the Assyrian king returns to


Nineveh and falls by the sword there.23 Account B2 begins with 2 Kgs
19:9b and proceeds to the end of the chapter.24 The recognition of two
sources was supported further by recognizing the parallel structure and
content of the two strands. The fact that Assyrian emissaries are sent
not once, but twice (in chapter 18 and again in chapter 19) suggested
to Stade the presence of a doublet.25 As well, the parallel speeches of
2 Kgs 18:2935 and 2 Kgs 19:1013 were noted.26
L. L. Honors monograph, Sennacheribs Invasion of Palestine, thor-
oughly examined the Assyrian evidence (the study of which occupied
fully one-third of his book) as well as the evidence found in the bibli-
cal narratives and the prophecies of Isaiah.27 Honor listed six possible
explanations for the evidence regarding Sennacheribs invasion, three
of which assumed one campaign (the Assyrian sources, Account A
and B all refer to the same incident), and three of which assumed two
campaigns (the Assyrian sources and Account A refer to one event,
Account B refers to another). Honors conclusions were cautious,
finally conceding that the usefulness of his study was to be found in
highlighting the problems regarding the historical reconstruction of
Sennacheribs invasion.28 By and large he held to Stades source-critical
conclusions.

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

B. S. Childs study, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, largely affirmed


Stades source-critical decisions, but nuanced them somewhat.29 Childs
contributed to the source-critical question by distinguishing the origi-
nal ending of B2 from that of B1.30 With Stade and Honor, Childs saw
the conclusion of B1 in the hearing of a rumour (19:9) and the return
of Sennacherib to Nineveh (19:3637), but he determined that B2 did
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 contin-
uous sources, Childs argued that B2 ended with Sennacheribs destruc-
tion (v. 35), along with his army, thereby freeing Account B2 of the
need to share the ending with B1.31
Childs conclusions regarding the historical reconstruction of the
event itself are judiciously cautious: In terms of the specific historical
problem of 701, it seems unlikely that a satisfactory historical solution
will be forthcoming without fresh extra-biblical evidence.32 Childs
mentioned Herodotus account only in a footnote, dismissing it as of
no real value for reconstructing the events of 701 b.c.e., a judgment
that has been largely followed by subsequent studies.33 Most signifi-
cantly, Childs source-critical conclusions (built on the work of Stade)
have been widely accepted by scholars and are often referred to as the
Stade-Childs hypothesis.

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

and Childs, Clements claimed that there is no difficulty at all in piecing


together a completely coherent account of what had happened to Judah
in the years 705701.38 Clements approach solved the historical prob-
lem through an appeal to midrashic appropriation of prophecy, yet he
failed to subject the 2 Kings evidence to a literary analysis, drawing on
the source-critical decisions of predecessors. Clements focused instead
on solving contradictions within the narrative that he took for granted
rather than demonstrated through literary analysis.39
Christof Hardmeiers monograph, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Unter-
gang Judas, looked at the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative and related
biblical material.40 Contrary to other studies, Hardmeier suggested
that the entire narrative of 2 Kgs 18:919:37 was a fictional creation.
He viewed 2 Kgs 18:910; 18:1319:9a, 19:3637 as a coherent story,
rejecting the source-critical analyses of Stade and Childs. Though simi-
lar to the latter theory, he saw B2 as secondary.41 Employing narrative
criticism, he solved the problem of an assault on Jerusalem after tribute
was paid by suggesting it purposefully served to add to the drama of
the narrative.42 The basis of his conclusions regarding the fictitious
nature of the narrative was his assertion that it was actually written
in 588 b.c.e. with the events surrounding the 6th century Babylonian
threat to Jerusalem as its historical background.43 He suggested this as
the most reasonable period (Entstehungsituation) for the composition
due to interesting parallels between the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narra-
tive and the events of 588 b.c.e. According to Hardmeier, what gave

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

the number of Assyrians killed in the biblical text to be historically


inaccurate. Gallaghers approach to source-critical decisions is initially
similar to the position of Stade, except that he rejects the division of
Account B into two parallel sources. However, he does see Account A
as a separate source, arguing that it is essentially an overall summary
in its present context.
Contrary to Gallaghers conclusions regarding the historicity of the
Rabshakehs speeches, E. Ben Zvi and D. Rudman separately have
pointed out that these speeches comprise common biblical language and
even resemble prophetic language, rather than reflect actual Assyrian
speech and propaganda.54 Ben Zvi set out to tackle the question of the
historical reliability of the speeches, concluding that they are largely
free compositions of the biblical writer, though they were restricted by
some collective memory of an actual visit of the Assyrian Rabshakeh.55
Rudman, on the other hand, set aside historical questions to examine
the first speech rhetoricallywhile acknowledging that B1 and B2 are
parallel.56
In his recent monograph, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies, Peter
Dubovsk has offered some tentative support for Gallaghers conclusion
regarding the historicity of the Rabshakehs speeches. After examining
numerous Assyrian texts in an effort to reconstruct Assyrian intelligence
practices, Dubovsk concluded that the biblical presentation of such
espionage in the Rabshakehs speeches in 2 Kgs 1819 corresponded to

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

that evinced in Sennacheribs annals and the Neo-Assyrian archives.57


Thus, the parallels between Rabshakehs speech and other biblical pas-
sages may simply indicate the quality of Assyrian intelligence rather
than be understood as the creations of the biblical writers. However,
Dubovsk admits that this does not mean that the biblical sources reflect
the historical reality of the 701 Assyrian invasion, but may simply indi-
cate that the biblical redactors, while writing and redacting 2 Kgs 1819,
drew on their knowledge of intelligence operations as practiced by the
imperial powers of the first millennium b.c.e. Strangely, in light of his
focus, Dubovsk appears unaware of Rudmans study and fails to deal
with Ben Zvis arguments in this regard.58 Dubovsk holds to the source
delineations of the Stade-Childs hypothesis and puts the composition
of B2 to the post-exilic era.59 However, Dubovsk never subjects 2 Kgs
1819 to a literary analysis, instead simply assuming the existence of the
A, B1, and B2 sources due to the broad consensus among scholars.60
His assessment of the historicity of 2 Kgs 1819 concludes that they
reflect the Neo-Assyrian world but that the combination of A, B1
and B2 led to a narrative that lacks chronological order, and does not
present a factual account of a sequence of historical events.61
In sum, the source-critical conclusions of Childs and Stade have
been widely accepted by scholars.62 Gallagher is alone in his rejection

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

of the division of Account B, but still accepts the basic source-critical


judgment that two literary sources are present in 2 Kings 1819.63 In
other words, the text has been charged with failing to combine different
sources carefully enough to avoid needless repetition and contradictions

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

within the narrative, therefore, demanding the isolation of different


sources.64

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

unqualified victor but the campaign is somewhat disastrous, with his


army suffering losses, probably due to plague or some other unknown
factor.66 In this reconstruction, Account A reflects the 701 campaign
and Account B, the later campaign.67 This third reconstruction has not
found a wide hearing in recent years. In particular, attributing any
historical significance to the angelic attack on the Assyrian army has
been disparaged. This is despite earlier attempts to see some correlation
with Herodotus account of Assyrian losses.68
Regardless of which reconstruction is followed, the siege of Jerusalem
is usually posited. In the first reconstruction, the siege results in Heze-
kiahs capitulation; in the second, the siege is not entirely successful; in
the third, the siege results in the losses suffered due to plague or divine
intervention. For example, in A History of Israel A. Soggin describes
Jerusalem after Sennacheribs invasion as suffering the after-effects of

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

a long siege and describes the three biblical accounts of Sennacheribs


invasion as accounts of the siege of the capital.69
However, recent studies on the Assyrian texts have been equivocal
regarding whether a siege of Jerusalem actually took place in 701 b.c.e.
It has recently been questioned whether Sennacherib shut up Hezekiah
like a bird in a cage by standard siege methods of employing a siege
mound against the city. In Sennacheribs annals, when describing
the siege of the fortified cities of Judah the description is much more
elaborate: I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities . . . Using
packed-down ramps and applying battering rams, infantry attacks by
mines, breeches and siege machines.70 It is strange that such elaborate
descriptions of siege warfare are made concerning these cities but not
concerning Jerusalem.71 D. Ussishkin previously supported the siege
interpretation and located the Camp of the Assyrians (referred to
by Josephus) outside the walls of the city on the northwest hill of
Jerusalem.72 A. van der Kooij disputed Ussishkins interpretation, sug-
gesting that the Assyrian texts do not imply a siege and arguing that
there is actually no evidence for such a siege.73 Tadmor and Mayer have
argued similarly that the Assyrian annals imply that there was no siege.74

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

Ussishkin later recanted his view, concluding, There is no archaeologi-


cal evidence indicating that a battle, siege, or conquest ever took place
[at the Camp of the Assyrians].75 Even if a complete consensus has not
been formed, the ambiguity of the references to shutting up Hezekiah
like a bird in a cage and whether there were indeed siege works set
up against the city or merely forts built to cut off trade routes has
been underscored by the aforementioned studies.
However, despite the conclusions of these studies, most interpreters
still understand the Assyrian annals and the biblical accounts as refer-
ring to a siege of Jerusalem.76 For example, Provan, Long and Longman
state in their A Biblical History of Israel that the biblical accounts and
Sennacheribs annals all agree that Jerusalem ended up being besieged
by an Assyrian army.77 Even Mayer, who argues that Sennacheribs
annals do not refer to a siege and that a siege did not in fact take

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

place, continues to read the biblical account as referring to the siege


of Jerusalem in which 185,000 Assyrians are slaughtered.78
In sum, historical reconstructions of the events of 701 b.c.e. have been
deeply influenced by source-critical delineations. The first reconstruc-
tion is based solely on Account A.79 The third assumes that Account
A and B are separate sources referring to separate events. Only the
second reconstruction considers both A and B as referring to one event,
although it disregards statements in Account A regarding the payment
of tribute to Sennacherib while he was at Lachish. Dependence upon
these source-critical delineations is so great that renewed criticism of
these conclusions is requisite.

B. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative as Part of the DH


Given the extensive amount of study on the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative, there has been surprisingly little work done on its relation
to the larger DH. The recent volume by the European Seminar on
Historical Methodology, Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sen-
nacherib in 701 b.c.e., largely ignores the Deuteronomistic context of
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, with few articles even mention-
ing the Deuteronomist (hereafter Dtr) or the DH.80 Part of the reason

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

for this may be an implied rejection of the hypothesis.81 However,


even earlier work on this text, in which the authors embraced the DH
theory, did not discuss its implications for the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative in detail. For example, Childs monograph referenced Dtr
only in passing and failed to discuss the narrative as part of the larger
whole.82 Similarly, Clements monograph suggests that all the Isaiah
narratives were incorporated as a connected trilogy into the history of
2 Kings where they are now to be found but fails to take into account
the larger narrative of the DH in his analysis or discuss the Deuterono-
mistic shaping of the corpus.83
Perhaps the reason these studies ignore the DH hypothesis is that,
with parallel Assyrian accounts available, energies have been more
focused on reconstructing the history of Sennacheribs invasion rather
than on the literary features and Deuteronomistic context of the Heze-
kiah-Sennacherib narrative in the book of Kings. As well, confidence
in the source-critical conclusions of the Stade-Childs hypothesis may
have led to this lacuna in scholarship. Also, the assumption that Dtr
was merely a redactor may have lead to scholars temporarily forgetting
about Dtrs work and instead focusing on putative sources which lay
behind his work in redaction. However, a responsible approach to the
text must take into account the DH hypothesis.84 Acknowledging Dtrs
work is relevant both for interpreting the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narra-
tive (2 Kings 1819) and for coming to source-critical conclusions.

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

As is well known, the biblical books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,


Samuel, and Kings comprise the DH.85 While the influence of Deuter-
onomy on these books was noted in earlier studies,86 it was the seminal
work of Martin Noth that drew attention to the essential unity of the
corpus.87 Noth argued that Dtr incorporated the Deuteronomic law as
the introduction to his work, framing it with speeches of Moses (thought
to be his own creative compositions)88 and adding other sources (con-
quest tales, prophetic narratives, annals, etc.) that he organized and
shaped into a coherent story. Situated at integral junctures throughout
his history were speeches that Dtr placed on the lips of key characters
or Dtrs own summarizing reflections, which spelled out the course of
events in his history and demarcated major sections within his work.89
Dtr shaped his source material, imposing unity in chronology, themes,
and literary style.90 In many respects Noth accepted the literary judg-
ments of his predecessors but was novel in stressing the unity of the
work as a whole.91

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

One aspect of Noths conclusions that has been vigorously disputed


is the theme(s) of the history. Noth maintained a purely negative view
of Dtrs purposes. The guiding principle in his narrative was the Law of
Moses, which Dtr used to judge the entire history of Israel and present
the history of Israel as one of disobedience to Yahwehs law. The history
was written to show the consequences of such disobedience climaxing
in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Davidic monarchy. Thus, as
Cross has summed it up, the theme running through the framework
of the Deuteronomistic history, according to Noth, is a proclamation
of unrelieved and irreversible doom.92
However, there have been numerous responses to Noths position in
this area that draw attention to the presence of other themes as well.93
Von Rad and Wolff pointed to a hopeful theme that existed alongside
the pessimistic theme highlighted by Noth.94 Based on the recognition
of these two contrasting themes, F. M. Cross offered an alternative to
Noths exilic Dtr by postulating both a preexilic (Josianic) Dtr1 and an
exilic Dtr2.95 Cross suggested that the hopeful theme contained in the
promises to David would not have flourished during the exile, neces-
sitating a preexilic edition of the DH.96 Cross influence created what

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

has sometimes been referred to as the Harvard school (with many of


his students publishing in support of his theory).97
Smend argued for a subsequent redaction to the DH that was
nomistic, that is, a redaction concerned with obedience to the Law of
Moses.98 His suggestions led to the so-called Gttingen school which
has subsequently argued for three exilic redactions: DtrG(G for
Geschichte / history) explaining Jerusalems fall; DtrP (P for Prophetic)
with stories of prophets and highlighting the prophetic word; and DtrN
(N for nomistic or legal) which included the Deuteronomic code and
critiques Israel for violating details of the law.99
Both the Harvard and Gttingen schools base their theories on dis-
tinct themes or concerns within the DH, then posit a series of redactions
to account for this diversity. It would appear that these studies view Dtrs
work as so simplistic that it could only have had one thrust. However,
it should be asked whether the only explanation for the multifaceted
content in the DH is a variety of redactors involved in its composition.
Is every theme, mood, or concern that scholars can isolate in the docu-
ment evidence of a separate redactor responsible for each?100
Possibly some of the diversity found in the DH is due to the het-
erogeneous sources that Dtr incorporated into his work but did not

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

extensively rewrite.101 However, it is quite possible that the author


himself included more than one theme, and addressed more than one
concern in his work. Interestingly, Cross located both the theme of
the sins of Jeroboam and the theme of the promises to David within
Dtr1s work.102 However, the Gttingen School has opted to see different
hands involved in these two themes.103 If such distinct themes could
be original to one work (the Josianic Dtr), as Cross allows, this would
suggest that Dtr was not simplistic and raises the possibility that Dtr
could have produced a work which included both optimistic and pes-
simistic aspects.104 This is similar to some of the responses that allowed
such diversity to come from a single author.105 The inherent subjectiv-
ity of which theme to focus on and which theme is thought to be too
distinct to have been employed by one author reveals a weakness in
this methodology.106
The present study agrees with Noths insight that the DH was
essentially the product of one author in the exile.107 This supposition,

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

in my judgment, makes better sense of the data without multiplying


assumptions.108 Dtr incorporated large blocks of material in some
instances (especially in Samuel and Joshua), and in other instances he
creatively composed narratives based on the information available to
him (annals, etc.).109 The Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative would seem
to fit in with the latter category. Clearly sources were used, but Dtr
creatively composed the narrative relying on chronological data and
other entries in what may be unidentifiable sources.110

(review of M. OBrien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, Bib


71 [1990]: 567), a staunch proponent of the Harvard school, has commented perhaps
the time has come for us to reread Noth with an open mind as it still explains so
much so well that it deserves a fair and sympathetic hearing.
108
Adhering to Occams razor to reduce unnecessary complexity. E.g., Helga Weip-
pert (Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfllung im deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerk, in Congress Volume: Leuven [ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden:
Brill, 1991], 116131) elaborated on von Rads recognition of a promise-fulfilment
schema and has argued that it is a key to understanding the DH. Through an exami-
nation of texts from Judges, Samuel and Kings, Weippert has demonstrated that this
promise-fulfilment schema is found throughout the DH in both long stretches of text
and in minute examples. She concludes that it is so pervasive that it must have been in
the redactors sources as well as employed by the redactors themselves. Weippert (Das
deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung,
TRu 50 [1985]: 213249) herself accounts for the DH through pre-existing blocks
of material and a series of redactions. This study would hold that the reason such a
schema is found in multiple levels is due at least in some part to the fact that one hand
was largely responsible for the DH. As we will see, the promise-fulfilment schema is
found in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative as well and it crosses the various putative
sources delineated by the Stade-Childs hypothesis.
109
As mentioned above, Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 77) himself maintained,
Dtr. needed to construct and compose by himself the account of the monarchy from
Solomon onwards though he employed the chronological system in the Books of the
Chronicles to provide a solid framework. Not that Dtrs creativity was constrained by
the sources available to him. As an author, Dtr created narrative moments (out of, at
times, raw data or annalistic reports), imagining a world of realistic characters, creating
suspense and drama (which often functioned didactically) rather than lifelessly retelling
a tale or simply chronicling events. As Long (Historical Narrative and the Fictional-
izing Imagination, VT 35 [1985]: 405416) writes, historians in ancient Israel freely
used the tools of literary fiction in their telling of the past (416).
110
This is similar to the work of Herodotus (in keeping with the comparison Noth
made with classical historiography) who Pierre Briant (From Cyrus to Alexander: A
History of the Persian Empire [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002]) maintains, was
writing in the fifth century on the basis of unidentifiable sources (20). Becking (Chro-
nology, 64) argues similarly regarding the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, stating that
the author had various sources at his disposal . . . . [but it is] impossible to reconstruct
them. This implies that I do not agree with the solution of Brevard Childs. . . .
26 introduction

Most have understood Noth as presenting Dtr as both an editor and


author.111 This understanding of his theory allows scholars to appeal
to both aspects of Dtrs work: to interpret either discrepancies in pas-
sages (Dtr as redactor) or the unity evident in the DH (Dtr as creative
author).112 However, the question remains: was Dtr more author than
editor or vice versa? Scholarship on the book of Kings is somewhat
divided on the issue, with some suggesting that Dtr incorporated his
sources with only light Deuteronomistic editing113 and others argu-
ing for extensive Deuteronomistic editing.114 However, some of Noths
statements clearly emphasize Dtr as a true author rather than editor.
Noth writes:
The whole purpose of examining Dtr. in detail above was to show that it
is not a matter of a Deuteronomistic redaction of a historical narrative
that was already more or less complete; rather, we must say that Dtr. was
the author of a comprehensive historical work, scrupulously taking over
and quoting the existing tradition but at the same time arranging and
articulating all the material independently. . . .115
In fact, Noth goes on to say, the closest parallels [with Dtr] are those
Hellenistic and Roman historians who use older accounts, mostly
unacknowledged, to write a history. . . .116 Van Seters comments, For
Noth, it is not a case of Dtr being both editor and author, as he is now
sometimes understood, but a choice between these two models. And
this is made very clear by the parallels he citesthe Hellenistic and

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

Roman historiography.117 Rather than seeing Dtr as merely arranging


the sources, Noth saw Dtr as an author who entered more deeply into
his sources than many have thought.118
While the composition of the DH is not the main focus of the present
study, this understanding of Dtrs work will be tested by the literary
analysis in this monograph. One purpose of this study is to suggest
that important dimensions of the problems surveyed above regard-
ing the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative have never been adequately
investigated. No thorough literary analysis of the biblical accounts,
incorporating advances in such analysis represented by newer literary
criticism, has been attempted.119 As well, the extent of the Deuterono-
mistic shaping of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative has not been
fully explored.

II. Methodology

A. Literary Criticism/Source Criticism


A thorough literary analysis of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
will necessarily employ traditional literary or source criticism (here-
after, source criticism).120 Source criticism can be traced back to the

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

early phase of the critical approach to the OT/HB.121 As the results of


source-critical studies gained wide scholarly acceptance, source criti-
cism became the base methodology of the critic. The goal of source
criticism is to query behind the text to ascertain earlier literary sources;
however, the discovery of sources is not an end in itself. The literary
sources uncovered by this methodology, since they are more ancient
than the existing text, are often thought to give critics closer access
to the history of Israel, and bolster the reliability of the biblical texts.122
Source criticism has been either assumed in the majority of studies
since its advent or, in more recent times, ignored in favour of newer
methodologies (which usually implies that the scholar is no longer
working in historical reconstruction).123
Conversely, the present study wishes to avoid both approaches. Rather
than assume the traditional source delineations in 2 Kings 1819, or
ignore the methodology, this study will re-examine the validity of
such source-critical judgments. Such a re-examination is well overdue
since, as H. H. Klement has pointed out, in OT/HB research the evalu-
ation of biblical narratives as historiography has been carried out in
dependence on literary-critical hypotheses formed at the turn of the
[last] century.124
In light of this situation, a fresh look at these narratives following
the method of source criticism will be undertaken here. N. Habel has
outlined this method as follows:
[The Source Critic] begins by ascertaining the internal arrangement of the
text chosen for study. What are its themes, structure and literary units?
How are these units related? Is there a thematic, formal, chronological
or haphazard connection between them?125

to refer to an analysis of the significant artistic features of a literary work it should


not be used to refer to the identification of literary sources lying behind the biblical
text, an unusual nuance of literary criticism that has been confined to the circle of
biblical scholarship.
121
For a detailed history of the roots of literary criticism see Ronald E. Clements, One
Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976).
122
As Watson and Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism, 5) observe, in traditional source
criticism the primary value of the text lay in its being a depository for these earlier
materials, which were more useful and interesting than the biblical text.
123
E.g., new literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc.
124
Herbert H. Klement, Modern Literary-Critical Methods and the Historicity of the
Old Testament, in Israels Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Histori-
ography (ed. V. Philips Long; SBTS 7; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 439.
125
Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1979), 6.
introduction 29

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

B. New Literary Criticism / Rhetorical Criticism


In the opinion of this writer, one of the chief impediments to a pro-
ductive re-evaluation of these source-critical conclusions has been the
reluctance of scholars to incorporate a rhetorical approach into their
work. Van der Kooij has employed rhetorical methods in reading the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative as a story, but made no attempt to
bring his reading into conversation with conclusions regarding the
texts literary history.127 One exception, as we have seen, has been the
study by Hardmeier who brought rhetorical methods into conversa-
tion with traditional historical critical methods.128 Unfortunately many
have not followed Hardmeiers lead in this regard, probably due to his

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

contentious exegetical offerings and the unlikely historical conclusions


proffered in his study.
Newer literary criticism (hereafter, rhetorical criticism) has taken OT/
HB scholarship by storm.129 After more than a century of the dominance
of traditional historical-critical approaches, literary approaches to the
OT/HB have received a (mostly) warm welcome in biblical scholarship.
In many ways this turn of events can be credited to a sense of disap-
pointment and disillusionment with the traditional historical-critical
methods.130
Such literary approaches in biblical scholarship have strong similari-
ties to what in other fields of scholarship was known as New Criticism.
New Criticism emphasizes the literariness of literary texts and tries to
identify the characteristics of literary writing.131 Rather than attempting
to find the mind or personality of the author, New Criticism explores
the structure of a literary work and deals with the text instead of the
origins of the text.132 Rhetorical criticism in the present study shares

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

the outlook of New Criticism and is concerned with devices of writing,


narrative structures, and stylistic features of the text.133
Robert Alters The Art of Biblical Narrative advanced the method
more than any other work to date.134 Alter describes his approach as
minutely discriminating attention to the artful use of language, to
the shifting play of ideas, conventions, tone, sound, imagery, narrative
viewpoint, compositional units, and much else. . . .135 The rhetorical
approach adopted in the present study could be called somewhat
eclectic, drawing on approaches found in the works of Alter, Berlin,
Sternberg, Bar-Efrat and Fokkelman.136 This method has often been
called a close reading, and is much akin to new criticism.137

C. Source and Rhetorical Criticism


Since the OT/HB is literature, a rhetorical approach can be viewed as a
necessary part of any thorough study of the text.138 However, rhetorical
criticism of the OT/HB has tended to be ahistorical in its concerns.139

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

too condescending and inconsistent . . . to make viable theory.144 Yet


the hypothesis with which Sternberg would replace traditional source-
critical approaches is dogmatic in nature, positing Hebrew monotheism
as the historical explanation for the genesis of the text.145
Another scholar who has noted the ramifications of rhetorical insights
for source-critical approaches is Polzin.146 Polzin frequently criticizes
(less harshly than Sternbergs bombastic swipes) the deficiencies of
source-orientated approaches. He points out weaknesses in the pre-
suppositions of the method itself, saying an unacceptable proportion
of criteria by which scholars have dated their material in literary, form,
tradition and redaction critical studies have proven to be either invalid
or vastly inadequate for the task. . . .147 Yet despite all the critique of the
source-critical approach, he does not offer an alternative reconstruc-
tion of the history of the text.148 Polzin does not deny the validity of
historical critical approaches and he actually posits an exilic Dtr as his
implied author.149 However, he does not attempt to flesh out a new

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

source-critical theory of the origins of the text.150 While decrying the


source-critical approach Polzin offers no arguments for an alternative,
but only presumes the text makes sense, however worked-over the
text is scribally and hermeneutically, and however deficient it is text-
critically.151
Eslingers close readings of biblical narratives have not operated in
isolation from source-critical approaches. In his work he is in detailed
dialogue with source-critical scholars and has attempted to show the
relevance of his study for their source-critical conclusions. Eslingers
approach is rhetorical but operates with different assumptions than
Polzin, setting out to see if a biblical narrative can be read as a whole,
rather than presuming that it could.152 Eslinger allowed for the pos-
sibility that there may be some aspects that may not, or cannot be
comprehended.153 In fact, Eslinger explicitly spells out the implications
for source-critical hypotheses, seeing his study as damning evidence for
their legitimacy.154 Yet he fails to offer an alternative explanation for
the genesis of the text, except for noting the possibility that the nar-
rator is the deuteronomist.155 What he means by Dtr is unclear since
he does not venture a description of him or the process by which he
undertook his work.156 While thoroughly conversant with source-critical

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

approaches to the DH, his position on the compositional history of


the DH is unclear.
While appreciative of all of these studies, the present study would
distance itself from Sternbergs dismissiveness of previous scholarship,
and Polzins presumptions and his apparent polemic against historical
studies.157 Rather than presume that the text makes sense or merely
criticizing source-critical approaches and offering no constructive solu-
tions, the present study will incorporate a rhetorical approach to test the
integrity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative with an eye to historical
questions.158 Without a rhetorical approach, the historical significance
of the biblical text will often be misunderstood or misinterpreted.159
Moreover, without a responsible historical approach to the text, any
window into the history of ancient Israel is forfeited, leaving the text to
function purely on an aesthetic level. While in the past source criticism
has been equated with a historical approach and rhetorical criticism
with an ahistorical approach, this study will show that this should not
be the case. While rhetorical criticism initially operates analytically
independent of historical questions, the results of a rhetorical analysis
must be brought into the conversation in order to assess the possible
historical verisimilitude of the text (or portions thereof ).160

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

As Barton has stated, It is in the interests of all students of the


Old Testament that historical and literary critics should somehow
be brought to inhabit the same world [and] that most of the texts
they interpret need both historical and literary skill if they are to be
adequately interpreted.161 While clearly most rhetorical-critical studies
have ignored historically minded studies, the converse is equally true.162
However, biblical scholarship is in need of some way to translate the
results of both paradigms into usable data.163 This study attempts to do
just that, as a thorough literary analysis will have important implica-
tions for both literary and historical problems.
First, in respect to the literary problem, a thorough literary analysis
will reassess the existence of discrete sources behind the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative and help to re-examine the relationship between
the putative A and B accounts.164 Another important approach will be
to examine the narrative to evaluate the role Dtr played in its composi-
tion (author or redactor?). Our literary analysis will not be conditioned
by ideas of historical plausibility, as has often been the case in biblical
studies.165 Failure to distinguish between history and literary expression
can result in dubious source-critical decisions.

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

Secondly, in regard to the historical problem, a thorough literary


analysis is a prerequisite for use of the biblical text as a source in histori-
cal reconstruction.166 The close reading of the text will provide a clearer
understanding of the claims of the text, which is a necessary precursor
to assessing the historicity of its claims. This study will then analyze the
implications of these results for the use of this biblical text in historical
reconstruction. The goal of this study is not to give a comprehensive
reconstruction of the historical events of 701 b.c.e., but to determine
more clearly what evidence the biblical account in 2 Kings provides for
the historian. This study is an important prolegomenon to the use of
these biblical materials in such a historical reconstruction.167 Finally, this
study will demonstrate the inadequacy of a traditional source-critical
approach for examining a text for use in historical reconstruction and
instead assert that a rhetorical approach better serves such ends.

III. Overview

The following investigation will begin with a detailed critique of the


Stade-Childs hypothesis, reassessing its areas of usefulness and its
shortcomings. Our study will then offer a fresh source-critical analysis,
followed by a rhetorical-critical analysis of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative. We will then examine the ramifications of our rhetorical
study for source-critical hypotheses.
Building on the insights of the literary analysis, the present work
will then provide a close re-reading of 2 Kings 1819 which will offer
a new understanding of what events are described in this narrative. It
will be evident that source delineations have had a tremendous impact
upon our understanding of what the text is actually saying.168 As well,
independent analysis of this text, without circular interpretation of
this text with other evidences (e.g., Assyrian annals), will lead to new

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

hypotheses regarding the causal links operative in the events described.


This study will then assess the plausibility and historicity of the claims
of the narrative and offer final conclusions and suggestions regarding
its possible use in historical reconstruction. Finally, the implications
of our study for understanding the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative as
part of the DH (and Dtrs role in its composition), and for the value
of traditional source-critical approaches will be explored.
CHAPTER ONE

A SOURCECRITICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM

Having surveyed the history of scholarly approaches to the Hezekiah-


Sennacherib narrative, the next step in our study is a thorough critique
of the source-critical conclusions of previous scholars. In evaluating
the arguments for the Stade-Childs hypothesis, an initial critique will
be included with these arguments rather than presented in a separate
fashion. Attention to weaknesses in these areas will pave the way for
our new fresh source-critical analysis, which will follow source-critical
methodology in an effort to produce an example of source criticism
that does not suffer from the same shortcomings. The chapter will then
conclude with an evaluation of this fresh analysis.

I. Previous Source-Critical Approaches

The arguments advanced in favour of the Stade-Childs hypothesis are


based on: A) a perceived change in style between the putative accounts;1
B) divergent perspectives of the putative accounts; C) differences in
characterization between the putative accounts; D) interruptions within
the narrative; E) tensions or logical inconsistencies in the progression of
the narrative and its themes; F) the success in isolating discrete sources;
and finally, G) elements in the putative B1 which are duplicated in the
B2 accounts. These arguments require discussion and critique.

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

discernment of style is somewhat subjective, specific arguments have


been raised by scholars in support of the Stade-Childs hypothesis:
1. Second Kings 18:1316 is a terse, factual account as opposed to
the lengthy discursive narrative of 2 Kgs 18:1719:37 (Cogan); 2. the
spelling of Hezekiahs name in these verses differs from the spelling of
his name in the following verses; 3. Hezekiah is designated in various
ways (King Hezekiah, Hezekiah, King of Judah, or simply Hezekiah) in
the different sections of the narrative, indicating discrete sources.2
1. Truly, 2 Kgs 18:1316 tersely narrates Sennacheribs invasion of
Judah and the steps Hezekiah took to try and rid his country of the
Assyrians. If the following verses are thought to tell the same story,
they clearly tell the events in a more expanded style. However, a
source-critical analysis cannot first separate units and then contrast
their styles. The separation must first be justified. If 2 Kgs 18:1316 are
viewed as an introduction to the following verses, then the terseness
of the former does not necessarily indicate their separateness. In fact,
the contrast in style is not apparent until 2 Kgs 18:19 when the literary
style is dominated by direct speech. Second Kings 18:1718 appear to
employ the very same narrative style as vv. 1316. Childs attributed
the putative B material in 2 Kgs 18:1718; 3619:2, 89a, 36, 37 to Dtr
and characterized their style as flat descriptive language.3 Childs also
previously noted that 2 Kgs 18:1316 is in the style of Dtr.4 While he
does contrast the style of the lengthy speeches of the Rabshakeh with
that of the narrative portions, he makes no real distinction between
the narrative portions of the putative Accounts A and B.5 If the narra-
tive styles of similar portions in the various putative accounts cannot
be distinguished, and appear to be written in the same style as Dtr,6

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

arguments based on separating sources on this basis cannot be given


too much weight.7
The literary style of the lengthy speeches (2 Kgs 18:1935) differs from
that of the previous section, necessitated by the fact that this section
consists almost entirely of direct speech. The change in style is clear, as
can be seen in the change from wayyiqtol verbs to a variety of verbal
forms. However, it is standard in Biblical Hebrew for direct speech
to employ various verbal forms as opposed to narrative, which has a
wayyiqtol backbone and follows fairly consistent rules.8 Following the
(largely unilateral) conversation between the Rabshakeh and Hezekiahs
officers, there is a return to typical Hebrew narrative forms and there
is no appreciable difference in the style of narrative from that found
at the beginning of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Interestingly,
some have viewed these speeches as the composition of Dtr.9 If this is
the case, recognition of Dtrs style in both putative accounts undermines
arguments for their separation based on literary style (which would
supposedly reveal different literary hands).
Arguments for separating 2 Kgs 18:1316 from 2 Kgs 18:1719:37
may be more dependent on the idea that the former is drawn from an
official archival record, than on a recognition of a clear divergence in

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

literary style.10 Because 2 Kgs 18:13 references the fourteenth year of


Hezekiahs reign, this has given the impression to many critics that this
reflects its archival origins.11 However, the date formula and description
of the foreign monarchs campaign is written in typical Deuteronomistic
style.12 What is rarely pointed out is that the following verse includes first
person speech by Hezekiah: I have sinned; withdraw from me; what-
ever you set on me I will bear (2 Kgs 18:14). It is curious that nearly
all scholars attribute the origin of this verse to an archival document
but do not comment on this short first person statement by Hezekiah.
However, it seems unlikely to this writer that an archival document
would contain the first person speech of the king.13 The character of

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

writer employed royal inscriptions in his compositions. He concludes mainly in the


negative, though he suggests that the use of an Israelite king list was probable.
14
E.g., the 2000 meeting of the European Seminar on Historical Methodology con-
cludes that Account A was derived from an official chronicle which they posit would
have provided the data on the names, sequence, and synchronization of the kings, as
well as lengths of reign and was probably analogous to the Babylonian Chronicles.
See Grabbe, Reflections on the Discussion, 319.
15
Ibid.
16
The latter account even employs the same initial verb ( to go up) as 2 Kgs
18:13 in its description of the foreign powers attack.
17
E.g., Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion, 37; and Kuenen, De profeten en de profetie
onder Isral, VIII.17.
18
E.g., Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 241) offer the different spelling of Hezekiahs
name as indicative of discrete sources.
19
Shebna is also spelled this way in 2 Kgs 19:2.
44 chapter one

sources here.20 Of course, variations in spelling are commonly found in


the OT/HB. For example, in Gen 4:18 the name Mehujael is spelt differ-
ently in the very same verse ( and )without the question
of sources or diverse authorship raised.21 Previous arguments for the
Stade-Childs hypothesis based on distinctive orthography are flawed
because they do not take into account the spelling of other names in
the narrative.
3. Cogan and Tadmor have detected discrete sources based on the dif-
ferent ways that Hezekiah is designated in 2 Kings 1819.22 Throughout
the narrative, various designations are 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 uniformly
employed throughout the narrative, but appear randomly. In 2 Kgs
18:9, 13, 17, 19:1, 5; 20:14, the Judean king is designated King Heze-
kiah. In 2 Kgs 18:14(2x), 16; 19:10 Hezekiah is designated, Hezekiah,
King of Judah. Elsewhere, Hezekiah is designated simply by name
with no reference to his kingship.23 These various designations do not
line up according to traditional source delineations as the chart below
demonstrates.

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

2 Kgs 18:112 Account A Account B1 Account B2


King Hezekiah 18:9 18:13 18:17; 19:1, 5
Hezekiah, King 18:14(2x), 16 19:10
of Judah
Hezekiah 18:1, 10 18:15 18:19, 22, 29, 19:9, 14, 15, 20
30, 31, 32, 37;
19:3

Account A contains all three designations; Account B1 contains both


King Hezekiah and simply Hezekiah; and Account B2 employs both
Hezekiah King of Judah and simply Hezekiah.24 Arguments based on
distinctive designations for Hezekiah are not compelling because they
fail to take into account all of these occurrences.
In sum, arguments supporting the Stade-Childs source delineations
based on the criteria of change in literary style are not compelling. The
literary style of the putative Account A is not appreciably different from
that of Account B, with many scholars even designating the style of both
as that of Dtr. In my view, there are no conclusive arguments based on
literary style that support the traditional source-critical delineations of
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.

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

1. If different sections of a document have different outlooks or van-


tage points, it is usually seen as an important indicator of the presence
of discrete sources.26 Some scholars have suggested that the putative
accounts B1 and B2 betray no knowledge of Account A.27 What is most
often pointed to as displaying the ignorance by the putative Account
B of the putative Account A is the lack of reference in the former to
the tribute paid in Account A. Since the putative Account B narrates
Assyrian aggression towards Hezekiah and his capital, it seems unaware
of the tribute paid in the previous verses. The assumption underlying
this argument is that the tribute Hezekiah pays to Sennacherib should
have been sufficient to stay any further aggression. Also, some have
suggested that Account B was ignorant of the fall of Lachish, with the
mention of Lachish in 2 Kgs 19:9 being merely a redactional cross-
reference inserted by Dtr and derived from 2 Kgs 18:14 (Account A).28
These observations require further discussion.
First, the assumption that Hezekiahs payment to Sennacherib would
have resolved the conflict between the two parties may not be justi-
fied. There may be other reasons for the continued aggression of the
Assyrians.29 Secondly, Account Bs ignorance of the fall of Lachish is
not apparent. The city is not only mentioned in 2 Kgs 19:9 but also in
the beginning verse of the putative B account (2 Kgs 18:17). Suggest-
ing that the mention of Lachish in 2 Kgs 19:9 is redactional begs the
question and fails to account for the previous reference to Lachish in
the B account.30 In both instances where Lachish is referenced, the city
appears to be Sennacheribs base of operations, suggesting it was con-
quered by the Assyrians. Rather than appearing to be ignorant of 2 Kgs
18:1316, Account B appears to be dependent on the preceding verses.

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

Without knowledge of the putative Account A, the reader would be


puzzled as to why there was an Assyrian king at Lachish. Furthermore,
2 Kgs 18:17 does not mention the name of the Assyrian king who sent
messengers to Hezekiah from Lachish. In fact, Sennacheribs name is
not mentioned again until 2 Kgs 19:16 (part of the putative B2 source).31
It would seem strange if the entire B1 narrative did not mention the
name of the Assyrian King.32 The putative B sources evidently assume
that Sennacherib has invaded Judah as the invasion is not narrated in
their own accounts. Contrary to speculation regarding the putative B
sources ignorance of Account A, the former clearly assume knowledge
of 2 Kgs 18:1316, though they do not explicitly refer to those events.
As well, the reference in 2 Kgs 19:2931 to economic destitution and
the remnant of Judah seems to presuppose 2 Kgs 18:1316 and the
devastation of Judah referred to there.33
An example of the lack of explicit reference to an earlier part of a
narrative, which is assumed, is found in 1 Samuel 11. First Samuel
11:14 reports the terrible terms that Nahash offers to the besieged
people of Jabesh Gileadthat he may gouge out one eye of everyone
(1 Sam 11:2). The narrative then describes Saul hearing of the threat
and his response. However, this threat is not repeated in the narrative.
The reason for Sauls outrage is never explicitly stated other than in the
beginning; it is only assumed.
2. A similar argument has been made by Honor to support the separa-
tion of the putative Account B into B1 and B2. Honor draws attention
to the two prophecies by the prophet Isaiah. He admits they are not
contradictory but thinks that: a) they do not correspond; and that
b) it is unnatural that the second prophecy does not refer to the earlier
one.34 First, this appeal to the nature of things does not seem meritori-
ous but seems to impose an unreasonable restriction on the text, since
there are other examples of prophecies that follow an initial prophecy

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

where there is no reference to the latter.35 The lack of correspondence


between the two prophecies that Honor perceives is based on the fact
that the first prophecy promised Sennacherib would hear a rumour and
return to his land where he would die an unnatural death but the
second prophecy only promises that God will protect Jerusalem and as
a result, Jerusalem will be immune.36 However, the second prophecy
(2 Kgs 19:28, 33) promises not only Jerusalems protection but also that
Sennacherib will be sent back on the way [he] came; i.e., back to his
homeland (which corresponds quite well with the initial prophecy).
Honors arguments in this regard do not stand up to scrutiny.
3. Some have perceived a distinction between the theological ideas
evinced in the different putative B sources of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative which supports the Stade-Childs hypothesis.37 Gray has argued
that Hezekiahs prayer in the putative B2 account distinguishes it from
his words in the putative B1 account by its animadversion on the
Assyrians affront to Yahweh in alleging that he is no more effective
than the gods of the conquered peoples. . . .38 Similarly, Cogan and
Tadmor point to the scorning of yhwh by the Assyrian monarch as
a distinct theme in B2 that is absent from B1.39 However, these motifs
and assertions are found in both putative B accounts. Rather than
supporting the separation of the B account into two discrete sources,
these motifs appear to unite them. After all, both B1 and B2 have the
messengers pointing out the impotence of the gods to stop the kings of
Assyria (cf. 2 Kgs 18:3335; 19:1213). There is even verbal repetition
between Hezekiahs initial response in B1 and his prayer in B2. In the
former, he expresses his hope that Yahweh has heard these Assyrians
who mock the living God ( 2 Kgs 19:4), while in the
latter, he ensures Yahweh has heard by informing him that these Assyr-
ians mock the living God ( 2 Kgs 19:16). This verbatim
repetition also employs a unique name for Yahweh. In the entire OT/
HB, only here (and in the Isaianic parallel) is this exact name

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.

This section of Deuteronomy is widely attributed to Dtr as part of the


introductory frame that encloses the Deuteronomic core.41 It would
appear that this is expressed in standard Deuteronomistic style.42 How-
ever, as has been noted above, so is the supposed archival source which
was employed in the putative Account A.43 So before the recognition
of the Deuteronomic Schools imprint leads us to demand the use of

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

a discrete source, the Deuteronomistic flavour of the entire Hezekiah


narrative must be taken into account.44 Also, the possibility that Heze-
kiah was connected with the Deuteronomic School must be considered.45
His reform reflects the laws of Deuteronomy, though Josiahs reforms
probably represent the latter more fully.46 Since the entire narrative
bears the marks of Dtr, Deuteronomistic language in Hezekiahs prayer
should not be unexpected nor belie its origins in a discrete source. In
sum, more than simply the ideas of the Deuteronomistic school must
be found in order to point to a separate source for this section of the
narrative. Just as Dtr reworked his sources in creating the narrative that
precedes this prayer, he has clearly reworked the latter.

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

account.48 In the putative B1 account, Hezekiah undergoes penitential


rites, enters the temple, and sends for the prophet Isaiah to intercede,
who gives an oracle of reassurance. In the putative B2 account, Hezekiah
himself intercedes, and Isaiah gives a reassuring oracle, unsolicited.49
Thus, the divergent roles played by both Hezekiah and Isaiah have
been viewed as too dissimilar to be derived from a single source and
are thought to support the separation of the B account into B1 and B2.50
These arguments are of uneven value.
1. Regarding the contradiction between the depiction of Hezekiah
in the putative Account A and the putative Account B, it should first
be noted that biblical narratives rarely present exemplary characters
without blemish. Invariably, such characters exhibit both positive and
negative qualities and have a multi-dimensional personawhether it
is the patriarchs, prophets, or kings.51 Secondly, the presentation of
Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20 clearly reveals negative qualities in his final
response regarding the prediction of the exile by Isaiah (2 Kgs 20:19).
This is significant as many who suggest that B presents an idealized
portrayal of Hezekiah also include 2 Kings 20 along with B as one of
the prophetic narratives originating from the same circles.52 How-
ever, these diverse actions of Hezekiah to the Assyrian threat may still
require further explanation. After all, if this is meant to be a blemish
on Hezekiahs record, there is no recorded repentance or transition
from one aspect of his character to another. This possibly antithetical
portrayal is adequately explained by the thesis that they originate from
two different sources.
2. Regarding the divergent characterizations which support the
separation of B into two discrete sources, it must first be pointed out
that Hezekiahs actions in the two putative B accounts are not that dis-
similar.53 In both instances he enters the temple (2 Kgs 19:4, 14) and

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

in both, he calls attention to the blasphemies of the Assyrians (2 Kgs


19:4, 16). That the king himself prays in the latter is not evidence of
its lateness, since in the DH Davidic kings often pray directly to God.
An intermediary is not always required.54
Regarding the divergent portrayals of Isaiah, in the putative B1
account Isaiah delivers an oracle solicited by Hezekiah, while in the
putative B2 account Isaiah delivers an oracle unsolicited.55 Underlying
this argument is the assumption that a prophet tended to give either
solicited or unsolicited oracles but not both.56 Of course, prophets in
the DH utter both solicited and unsolicited oracles (with the latter
being the most common).57 In fact, a close examination of the text

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

undermines the value of this distinction between solicited or unsolicited


oracles for detecting sources in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. In
the putative B1 account Hezekiah does not explicitly request an oracle,
but simply requests that Isaiah pray for the Judeans who had thus far
survived Sennacheribs assault (2 Kgs 19:4).58 However, a request for
prayer from a prophet is often equivalent to a request for an oracle.59
Therefore, it is likely that this oracle is solicited, though the solicitation
is implicit rather than explicit.
In the putative B2 account, there is no request for an oracle or prayer
as in the putative B1 account. Yet, the oracle by Isaiah is explicitly
said to be in response to Hezekiahs prayer (2 Kgs 19:20). A clue to
the relationship between the prayer and the responding oracles can
be found in 2 Samuel 24. In this narrative David prays to Yahweh
without any explicit request for an oracle (2 Sam 24:10). This prayer
results in an oracle from Yahweh mediated through the prophet Gad
(2 Sam 24:11). Later in the narrative, David again prays to Yahweh,
without explicitly requesting an oracular response (2 Sam 24:17) and
Yahweh again sends Gad with an oracle in response (2 Sam 24:18).
This evidence suggests that a prayer directed to Yahweh by the Davidic
monarch can be analogous to a request for an oracle from Yahwehs
prophet (perhaps especially when the monarch is currently in contact
with Yahwehs prophet). This would make the oracular response to

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

Hezekiahs prayer in the putative B2 solicited. Therefore, the role of


Isaiah in both cannot be distinguished by the reference to solicited and
unsolicited oracles since both were solicited (though neither explicitly).60
It is interesting in this regard that the similarities of Hezekiahs actions
in the putative B accounts initially provide indication to critics that they
are from parallel sources, and then the dissimilarities of the actions are
used as evidence that these are indeed divergent sources. Given these
weaknesses, differences in characterization between the putative B1 and
B2 accounts cannot be given much weight.

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

Some references in the B2 section have been thought to betray


knowledge of later events, suggesting a late date for their composition.
The reference to Egypt in 2 Kgs 19:24 and the Assyrians boast to have
dried up the Niles of Egypt has been seen as significant for such late
dating.74 Since Sennacherib did not invade Egypt but only his successors
Ashurbanipal and Esarhaddon did, this reference is thought to indi-
cate that the oracle was originally directed against these later Assyrian
monarchs.75 However, keeping in mind that this is poetry, the reference
to drying up the Niles of Egypt may actually refer to the Rabshakehs
boast in 2 Kgs 18:21 that Egypt will be of no help to Jerusalem. Also,
in Sennacheribs annals he boasts of a victory over Egyptian forces in
this very campaign into the Levant.76 This reference certainly does not
demand that it refer to a complete victory in the land of Egypt.77
Second Kings 19:2931 refers to the remnant of Jerusalem and
predicts that this remnant will go forth from Jerusalem. This refer-
ence conjures up images of return from exile, which would indicate a
post-exilic provenance. This is possible as these words are often used
to refer to the survivors of the exile.78 However, this is not necessar-
ily so.79 The clearest parallel to this nomenclature of remnant and
escaped one is found in 2 Chr 30:2 where Hezekiah is narrated as

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.

E. Tensions or Logical Inconsistencies


Logical inconsistencies found within a document or haphazard con-
nections between literary units within a narrative often have been seen
as signs of the use of multiple sources by a compiler / editor.83 Truly,
breaks in the sense and / or sequence of events portrayed in a narra-

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

As well, the supposed success in isolating complete strands in the


putative B1 and B2 sources has overshadowed the fact that the putative
Account A is itself incomplete. Second Kings 18:1316 does not provide
resolution and is in fact without an ending. When similar accounts in
the DH are compared, the withdrawal of the foreign king invariably
occurs.93 According to the methodology of the Stade-Childs hypothesis,
the only solution is that Account A shares the ending of Sennacheribs
withdrawal with B1.94 The apparent success in isolating complete inde-
pendent sources is not as definitive as usually stated.95 The ending to at
least one of the putative sources has been deleted. Clearly arguments
based on the success in completely isolating the different strands sub-
sumed within the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative are weakened by the
previous observations.

G. Duplications in the Narrative


Perhaps the foundation for the Stade-Childs source delineations is
the observation of the parallel structure and content of much of the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. This structure can be presented con-
veniently in a table.

Table 3

2 Kings 18:1919:7 2 Kings 19:9b7


Assyrian messengers are sent to Jeru- Assyrian messengers are sent to Jeru-
salem (18:17) salem (19:9b)
Threats are given via messengers Threats are given via messengers
which demand surrender and mock which demand surrender and mock
the inability of gods to stop Assyria the inability of gods to stop Assyria
(18:1935) (19:1013)
After hearing the threats Hezekiah After hearing the threats Hezekiah
enters the temple (19:1) enters the temple (19:14)
Isaiah gives an assuring oracle Isaiah gives an assuring oracle
(19:67) (19:2134)

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

In traditional source-critical thinking such parallels are taken to be vari-


ant versions of the same account (doublets).96 The similarities between
these sections of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative suggest to many
scholars that they are parallel accounts of the same event. The parallels
are striking and, based on source-critical assumptions, could be used
as evidence that they are indeed a doublet.

H. Appraisal of Previous Source-Critical Approaches


The various arguments marshalled in support of the Stade-Childs
hypothesis are of uneven value. Arguments based on stylistic differ-
ences, divergent perspectives and characterizations did not stand up to
scrutiny. The theology of the book of Deuteronomy has been detected in
Hezekiahs prayer in 2 Kgs 19:18. Whether this indicates the separate-
ness of this portion of the narrative is uncertain. Perceived interruptions
in the narrative have also yielded little fruit. The supposed unmitigated
success in isolating complete, continuous and independent sources has
been found to be overstated and essentially incorrect.
The firmest pillar of the Stade-Childs hypothesis is clearly the paral-
lel structure and content of the putative B sources.97 There are other
problems which require further explanation as well: the problem of
explaining the visit of the Assyrian emissaries despite the tribute paid
by Hezekiah, the problem of accounting for the fear of Hezekiah despite
Isaiahs word of assurance, and the problem of explaining the diverse
reactions of Hezekiah to the Assyrian threat (temple looting or temple
pilgrimage).98 Here certain elements of the Stade-Childs hypothesis
are most helpful. However, adopting it en masse is clearly problematic
in light of the many weaknesses highlighted above. A new analysis is
needed which will address these shortcomings.

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

II. A Fresh Source-Critical Proposal

Having now drawn attention to clear weaknesses in the traditional


source-critical delineations of 2 Kings 1819, we may now query
whether fault lies with the particular studies that argued for such delin-
eations or with the method itself. In order to explore these possibilities,
attention now turns to a fresh source-critical analysis of this narrative
that faithfully follows source-critical methodology.99 If the source-critical
studies of Stade and Childs have faithfully followed source-critical
methodologies, then a subsequent study following the same method
should produce results similar to their source-critical conclusions.
Therefore, following this critical procedure from the beginning with
a fresh analysis will be a useful exercise to scrutinize the continuing
validity of traditional source-critical method.
A source-critical investigation of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
must first question whether the passage is a literary whole or whether
there are units that can be isolated within it. Upon a cursory reading, it
is evident that a key event that occupies a large proportion of the passage
is the visit of Assyrian messengers. However, it is equally evident that at
two different times Assyrian emissaries are sent to Jerusalem. After each
narration of their assignment a speech is reported. Following each speech
Hezekiah proceeds to the temple to seek divine assistance. Subsequent
to each journey to the temple, the prophet Isaiah delivers an oracle of
salvation. This parallel structure can be presented conveniently in a table.

Table 4

2 Kings 18:1919:7 2 Kings 19:9b37


Assyrian messengers are sent to Jeru- Asszyrian messengers are sent to
salem (18:17) Jerusalem (19:9b)
Threats are given via messengers Threats are given via messengers
which demand surrender and mock which demand surrender and mock
the inability of gods to stop Assyria the inability of gods to stop Assyria
(18:1935) (19:1013)
After hearing the threats Hezekiah After hearing the threats Hezekiah
enters the temple (19:1) enters the temple (19:14)
Isaiah gives an assuring oracle Isaiah gives an assuring oracle
(19:67) (19:2134)

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

Designation King Hezekiah Hezekiah, King of Judah


Unit 2 Kgs 18:13, 17, 19:1 & 5 2 Kgs 18:14, 16, 19:10
Content 18:13Invasion of 18:14Hezekiah negotiates with
Sennacherib Sennacherib
18:17messengers sent to 18:16Hezekiah pays
Jerusalem Sennacherib
19:1Hezekiah hears the 19:10Assyrian messenger
message addresses Hezekiah
19:5Hezekiah sends to
Isaiah

The most common designation of Hezekiah is without reference to his


kingship and cannot be used to discern sources as its presence pervades
all sources. However, when the units are divided according to their
unique designations of the Judean monarch (see above table), we find
that each unit presents a generally consistent progression of events.
We will designate the King Hezekiah source E (for eponym) and the
Hezekiah, King of Judah source J (for Judah). In source E we find
that: a) Sennacherib invades Judah; b) Assyrian messengers are sent
to Hezekiah; c) Hezekiah hears the message; and d) Hezekiah sends
messengers to Isaiah. In source J we find that: a) Hezekiah negotiates
with the Assyrian King who has invaded (as indicated by his location at
Lachish); b) Hezekiah pays tribute to Sennacherib; and c) Assyrian mes-
sengers. who have been dispatched to Jerusalem, address Hezekiah.
These discrete sources disagree as to the outcome of events but each
reveals an almost unbroken storyline.105 Source E imagines the resolution
of the Assyrian invasion as owing to an appeal to the prophet. Conversely,
J sees Hezekiahs payment of tribute as precipitating the resolution. This
may indicate divergent theological outlooks for these discrete sources.
Source E felt compelled to involve Yahweh himself in the withdrawal
of the Assyrian king. Source J felt no such compulsion but was content
to describe simply these events without such theological colouring.
However, in source J there appears at first glance to be only a haphaz-
ard connection between its progression of events. Specifically, it appears
problematic that the Assyrian messengers are sent after the payment
of tribute in source J. However, a closer look at 2 Kgs 18:16 (source J)

Hezekiah and simply Hezekiah; and Account B2 employs both Hezekiah King of
Judah and simply Hezekiah.
105
Habel, Literary Criticism, 36.
68 chapter one

reveals the reason for the visit of the Assyrian messengersHezekiah


does not fully meet the demands of Sennacherib. In 2 Kgs 18:14 (source J)
Sennacherib demands 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold.
While the text records Hezekiah fulfilling the demands of silver, 2 Kgs
18:16 reveals that Hezekiah did not disburse the compulsory gold.106 It
merely states that Hezekiah stripped the doors of the temple and gave
them to the Assyrian king.107 Therefore, in source J the reason for the
messengers visit is obviously Hezekiahs failure to live up to his end
of the deal. Interestingly, this text and extant Assyrian sources agree
on the amount of gold Hezekiah paid to Sennacherib, though the lat-
ter claim that Hezekiah paid 800 talents of silver.108 However, there
may be some backhanded corroboration of an increase in silver paid
by Hezekiah in source J. Second Kings 18:15 states not that Hezekiah
paid out the required 300 talents of silver, but that he simply gave
(all) the silver in both the temple and his palace. Perhaps Hezekiah
was having difficulty fulfilling his payment of gold, so he attempted
to compensate by the payment of supplementary silver. This reneging
on the tribute of gold may have prompted the mission of the Assyrian
emissaries. As a result of this mission, Hezekiah may have agreed to
send the rest of the tribute at a later time (as indicated in the Assyrian
annals). This accurate historical reference may bespeak the antiquity
of the J source.
Further supporting our hypothesis of discrete sources based on
designations of the Judean monarch are the divergent characteriza-
tions of Hezekiah.109 In source J Hezekiah is portrayed as a temple
plunderer. This source was not embarrassed to let Hezekiah be seen
in a light analogous to his father (2 Kgs 16:8) in appropriating temple
resources to alleviate the calamitous situation. There appears to be no
moralizing judgment against such a move. This indicates the charac-
ter of the J source as this-worldly. That is, according to its viewpoint,

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

historical events progress according to mundane causation. We could


call this a pragmatic morality. Hezekiah is to be lauded for his timely
submission and creative renovations of the temple, as it is through
these actions that he saved his people. However, in source E we see
a different portrayal of Hezekiah. Hezekiah enters the temple in this
source as well; however, he enters not to loot it, but to seek divine
assistance. Contrary to source J, source E sees divine causation as the
explanation of historical progression. We could say its perspective is
other-worldly. Hezekiah is portrayed as a pious believer who does not
submit to the Assyrian king, but instead appeals to the Deity to resolve
the dire state of affairs.110
Having discerned these discrete sources, E and J, we can chart their
extent in a table:

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

would appear to be a redactional appropriation of this element of J


that ignored its original context. The connection between Hezekiahs
reneging on the gold tribute and the sending of the emissaries has been
severed. The redactor in this case may have misunderstood the nature of
their connection, as have many modern translations.111 Instead it served
his purposes to introduce the parallel speech of the Assyrian messenger
found in . This allowed him to tie in this otherwise superfluous and
parallel narration to what preceded by employing the designation found
frequently at the beginning of this narrative of Sennacheribs invasion.

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

This use of this element of J, while perhaps misunderstood chrono-


logically, nevertheless is ingenious. By separating this element from
its original setting, he has created an inclusio that beautifully links the
parallel speech he found in with the material derived from strand .
In sum, both E and J appear to reflect earlier sources employed by the
compiler of strand . The later redactor (perhaps Dtr) separated part
of J in order to link the material he found in strand with strand .
These source delineations are further buttressed by recognition of
spelling differences in regards to Hezekiahs name. Throughout the
Hezekiah macro-narrative, Hezekiahs name is not uniformly spelled.
The distribution of the shorter spelling of Hezekiahs name reveals a
pattern that has striking similarities to source J. Their distribution can
be seen in the following table.

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

It appears that these verses provide further evidence of our J source.


Nearly all the verses in J spell Hezekiahs name this way.112 Continuing
to strengthen our hypothesis of the J source and its this-worldly char-
acter, we notice that the shorter spelling of Hezekiah is also found in
2 Kgs 18:1 and 10. These verses do not seem concerned with anything
other than the events of the day. However, it must be noted that both
of these designations make no reference to Hezekiahs kingship. They
simply use his name. This makes problematic the connecting of source
J to the shorter spelling of Hezekiah. However, when we realize that
2 Kgs 18:1 does use the epithet King of Judah but in reference to Ahaz,
Hezekiahs father, this difficulty is alleviated as it is using the same
designation as in the rest of J. We are left only with the difficulty of

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

These sources represent independent traditions concerning the relay-


ing of the message of the Assyrians to Hezekiah. In P the messengers
subvert Hezekiahs role. The Assyrian messenger calls for Hezekiah
(2 Kgs 18:18) but these officials go out to meet him instead. Later in
P, these officials attempt to prevent the message of the Assyrian from
being heard by anyone but themselves (2 Kgs 18:26). Alternatively in
D, these officials are portrayed as pious (note their torn garments) and
diligent in ensuring the communication of the Assyrian message. The
divergent characterizations of these officials confirm our recognition of
these discrete sources. It may be that Isa 22:1525 reflects knowledge of

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

the P source where Shebna is characterized negatively.114 Since Shebna


is referred to as the secretary ( )the responsibility of faithfully
communicating the message fell specifically to him. This may be why
he is singled out as most blameworthy.115
What is the relation of P and D to J and E? It appears that early on
P was combined with E.116 This can be seen in how P fits in well with
the especially positive portrayal of Hezekiah in E. It is his meddling
officials who interfere with the communication between Hezekiah and
Sennacherib. These officials intercept the messengers intended for Heze-
kiah, and they attempt to censor the message. When Hezekiah finally
hears what has happened, he sends unnamed servants ( )to the
prophet (2 Kgs 19:5). This is in contrast to the D source, which names
these officials explicitly as Eliakim and Shebna (2 Kgs 19:2).
As noted above, the J source was this-worldly in its concerns. It did
not attempt to portray Hezekiah in an especially positive light. In this
source Hezekiah appears to negotiate with the Assyrians first-hand,
paying tribute himself and being addressed by the Assyrian messenger
directly. This would lead us to doubt whether D was incorporated into
this account at an early stage, as D portrays the messengers mediating
some of these actions. It seems more likely that D was combined with
EP at a stage before the combination of J and E. This left the unit EPD,
which had combined both traditions of how the Assyrian message was
communicated to Hezekiah. The editor did not feel the need to smooth
out the apparent differences, but out of respect for his sources let con-
tradictions stand. This EPD corpus now included: 1) the invasion of
Sennacherib; 2) the sending of Assyrian emissaries; 3) the interception
of the latter by Eliakim, et al.; 4) their attempt to subvert the message;
5) the faithful communication of the message to Hezekiah; 6) Hezekiahs

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

hearing of the message; 7) Hezekiah sending Eliakim, et al. to Isaiah;


8) servants of Hezekiah going to the prophet.
Source J was later integrated with EPD, which was now more suitable
for such combination due to its ambivalent portrayal of the roles of
Eliakim, et al. This allowed Hezekiah to retain his direct actions, while
supplementing them with those of his servants. In the end, so far as
EPDJ is concerned, we have been exclusively talking about the literary
history of strand .
The parallel strand has a complicated literary history of its own.
A preliminary analysis of strand reveals it too is a composite liter-
ary work. Immediately striking is the variety in form of the various
literary units within . These various forms can be easily portrayed in
a table.

Table 10

Form Disputation Prayer Taunt Oracle of Oracle of


Song Assurance Salvation
Unit 2 Kgs 2 Kgs 2 Kgs 2 Kgs 2 Kgs
19:1013 19:1519 19:2128 19:2931 19:3234

It seems clear that strand drew on various existing traditional sources


to compose its narrative. These elements will be examined in turn.
The element now sitting in initial position in strand is the prayer
of Hezekiah. This prayer follows a traditional pattern of: a) invocation
(2 Kgs 19:15), b) lament (2 Kgs 19:1618), c) and request (2 Kgs 19:19).
This traditional pattern suggests that the prayer had a life of its own
before its incorporation into strand . However, to this traditional psalm
there has been added the explicit mention of Sennacherib in order to
ensure its fit in the new context. That this is an addition can be dem-
onstrated through an analysis of vv. 1617. This lament begins with an
appeal for Yahweh to incline his ear and hear; this is followed by a
parallel appeal for Yahweh to open his eyes and see. These parallel
elements are typical pairs that precede the complaint proper. Yet this
pair is awkwardly followed by a repeated appeal for Yahweh to hear,
even though there is no second appeal for him to see. This second
appeal for Yahweh to hear appears to intrude on the balance of the
verse. It is within this awkward intrusion that the explicit mention of
Sennacherib appears. If the superfluous plea for Yahweh to hear is
deleted, along with the mention of Sennacherib by name, we are left
a source-critical approach to the problem 75

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

Israel. The addition of v. 23a is a maladroit attempt to tie in this oracle


to the preceding narratives. In the latter, Sennacherib communicates
through messengers, while in the former, he is said to speak with his
own voice against the Deity.
The oracle of assurance that follows the taunt song is obviously of a
disparate origin from the taunt song. This oracle continues the second
person address, but the subject has clearly changed, though there were
no indications given to the reader for such an important change. Read
as it is, it appears that the sign is being given to Sennacherib. However,
the subject matter makes clear that it is in reality part of the assurance
of deliverance. The compiler of was doubtless aware that the addressee
in the sign oracle was not Sennacherib. Nevertheless, he juxtaposed it
to the second person invectives against Sennacherib, perhaps simply
due to the agreement in person. The antiquity of the sign oracles seems
assured as it is obviously genuinely Isaianic as evidenced by its com-
mon place sign which will take three years to come to fruition (cf. the
similar signs in Isa 7:1416; 8:34; 20:3).121
The oracle in 2 Kgs 19:3234 appears to be the oracle original to
the strand. In fact, if 2 Kgs 19:2131 were deleted the text reads
smoothly.122 It is intimately tied in with vv. 3536 where the angel of
Yahweh attacks the Assyrians and Sennacherib returns to Nineveh.
The last element of strand to be examined is the message of the
Assyrians. This message has striking similarities to the speech of the
Rabshakeh which presently precedes it in . As determined above, 2 Kgs
19:10 was originally part of the J source, which referred to the Judean
monarch as Hezekiah, King of Judah. But even besides this verse, the
remainder of the speech resembles the speech of in important ways.
First, similar vocabulary is employed in both parallel speeches.123 Sec-
ondly, the list of cities which were unable to stop Assyrian hegemony

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

Strand 2 Kgs 18:34 Strand 2 Kgs 19:1213 2 Kgs 17:24


Hamath Hamath Hamath,
Sepharvaim Sepharvaim Sepharvaim
Ivvah Ivvah Avva
Hena Hena
Arpad Arpad
Telassar Babylon
Gozan Cuthah
Haran
Rezeph

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

referring to two missions by Assyrian emissaries.129 In order to better


tie in the two strands, he excerpted 2 Kgs 19:10 from J, transposing
it to the narrative. He also composed the narrative that bridges the
two strands, imagining the famous Tirhakah (clearly an anachronism)
as prompting the second mission of the Assyrian emissaries. In this
seam, he creatively connected the threat of the Egyptian force to the
prophecy in 2 Kgs 19:7 by employing similar vocabulary (return and
hear).130 Though this narration refers not to a rumour but to the actual
advance of the Egyptians, narratively it succeeded in linking and .
Thus, originally source comprised 2 Kgs 18:1319:7 which records
the prophecy that Sennacherib will return to Assyria where Yahweh
will kill him with the sword.131 The present text does not record the
hearing of a rumour that causes Sennacheribs return, nor do we have
an account of Yahwehs swordplay. It appears the original ending to
has been deleted and has been replaced by that of .
Strand originally began with an account of an Assyrian invasion,
followed by the relaying of threats to Jerusalem. The beginning of
has been deleted to make way for the somehow superior beginning of

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

strand . Thus the text as it now stands contains the beginning of


followed by the ending of . The material that is original to included
2 Kgs 19:1115a, 20, 3236. This source incorporated psalms and pro-
phetic oracles (2 Kgs 19:2131). As noted above, the short addendum
concerning the death of Sennacherib at the hands of his sons (2 Kgs
19:37) was derived almost certainly from Babylonian records accessed
in Babylon during the exile. Dtr was doubtless unaware of the time gap
between Sennacheribs withdrawal and his murder. His motivation for
its inclusion was his concern that the prophecy of Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19:7
be fulfilled in his narrative.
The result of Dtrs combination of these sources is a text that is mul-
tivalent. Distinct themes have been tied together and divergent perspec-
tives united in such a manner that the present text contains subtleties
which critical analysis has highlighted. The combining of antithetical
portrayals of characters has resulted in multifaceted characterizations
owing to the complex of sources employed and the willingness to
honour their distinctive voices.132

III. Conclusion

Obviously, the above source-critical analysis differs in significant ways


from the Stade-Childs analysis. Whether it would be as persuasive as
the latter analysis is doubtful.133 However, our analysis has sought to
argue for a new understanding of sources underlying the narrative
using consistent source-critical methodology. In the end, our own
fresh source-critical analysis may be open to critique similar to that
of the Stade-Childs variety. A brief consideration of its weaknesses is
necessary.
First, arguments based on antithetical portrayals of characters are
completely circular in nature. For example, in our fresh analysis, the
different elements of the supposed two parallel sources were artificially
juxtaposed, in order to distinguish between them. For example, the

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

actions of Hezekiahs officials in one strand (in P they intercepted and


suppressed the Assyrian message) were made to appear antithetical to
their actions in the other strand (in D where they faithfully communi-
cate the message to Hezekiah). However, characters in a narrative are
able to do more than one thing. The officials of the king are probably
meant to have met with the Rabshakeh on the kings request and to
have prevented the Assyrian threats from being communicated only to
the civilians in Jerusalem, but necessarily communicated to the king.
By arbitrarily separating these actions and not allowing any simple
progression in the story, the actions of the servants have been made
to look antithetical. However, this whole procedure was circular and
ignored the context of such actions.134 The supposedly divergent charac-
terizations of various characters in the narrative are only demonstrable
through circular means (see our discussion of characterization in our
rhetorical analysis below). Such arguments first rest on assumptions of
different sources, which are then compared to reveal their incompat-
ibility in character portrayals.
Secondly, regarding the parallel list of nations who were destroyed by
Assyria (2 Kgs 18:3334; 19:1213), the source-critical analysis has failed
to note closely the differences in the threats and their function. They are
not merely superfluous parallels. First, the addressees of the two threats
are different. The Rabshakehs speech (2 Kgs 18:2835) addresses the
people of Jerusalem, while the letter-threat (2 Kgs 19:1013) addresses
Hezekiah.135 The first speech warns the people that Hezekiah will deceive
them (2 Kgs 18:29), while the letter-threat warns Hezekiah that Yahweh
will deceive him (2 Kgs 19:10). Secondly, acknowledging the different
addressees helps explicate the differences in the list of regions conquered
by Assyria. The Rabshakehs speech mentions Hamath, Sepharvaim,
Ivvah, Hena and Arpad, in the context of highlighting the inability
of their gods to deliver Samaria, not their own lands (2 Kgs 18:34).136

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

has posited a reasonable function for employing these traditional ele-


ments into this narrative, suggesting it is an endeavour to draw out
the significance of the narrative by the use of poems which point to
important elements which it is desired to underline.138
Fourthly, although our fresh analysis employed as evidence the
divergent spelling of, and designations for, Hezekiah more consistently
than the Stade-Childs hypothesis,139 the use of such evidence to indicate
sources is very problematic. First, there is a textual issue in regards to
the spelling of Hezekiah as different textual traditions have different
spellings in important instances.140 Secondly, the issue of the spelling of
names may be more indicative of scribal practice than of divergent liter-
ary sources.141 In his definitive study of theophoric elements in Israelite
names, Z. Zevit observed that there is no discernable pattern . . . in the
use of the short form [of Hezekiahs name] within the chapters dealing
with Hezekiah (2 Kgs 1820).142 Zevit concluded that complicated
interacting forces involving scribal conventions, scribal errors . . . text
redactions, and text recensions gave rise to the appearance of free varia-
tion between the forms of the suffixed element.143 This makes the use
of such evidence in source-critical analyses highly problematic.

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

Similar to that of the Stade-Childs hypothesis, the foundation for our


fresh source analysis was the observation of the parallel content and
structure of elements of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. However,
our analysis discovered a literary clue in the text which explained the
heretofore inexplicable visit of the Assyrian emissaries after Hezekiah
paid tribute.
Another contribution of our fresh analysis is the recognition of a dis-
tinctive grammatical construction in both 2 Kgs 19:9a and 2 Kgs 19:20,
the irregular use of meaning concerning or about in connection
with the verb ( to hear). Our fresh analysis attempted to tie the
two verses together as redactional additions freely composed by Dtr.
However, even if such a position is rejected, it is significant that these
two verses appear in the supposed B1 and B2 sources. This provides
some source-critical evidence that casts doubt on the division of the B
source into two discrete units.144
The value of our fresh source-critical hypothesis is not in its potential
to create a new consensus theory. Rather it has been helpful in expos-
ing the weaknesses of such hypotheses. Our analysis has called into
question the validity of source-critical methodology. It seems that in
such an analysis subjective decisions are constantly made, arguments
are invariably circular in nature, and the principles themselves are only
selectively applied. As Habel writes in his handbook on the source-
critical method, sometimes detecting differences in sources is easier to
feel than to define.145 This may place the method more in the category
of art than science. Where does this leave us? In an effort at a closer
examination of the passage with a view to discerning its integrity we
will now undertake a rhetorical-critical analysis.

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

A RHETORICALCRITICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM

Before drawing final conclusions regarding putative sources within


our text, this study will now undertake a rhetorical-critical analysis of
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Following the latter analysis, the
results will be brought into conversation with the results of the above
source-critical analysis to determine the ramifications of rhetorical
analysis for source-critical conclusions.

I. Rhetorical-Critical Analysis

The first task of this rhetorical analysis will be a structural analysis


which will delineate the limits of the Hezekiah narratives. Searching
for one authentic structure in a biblical narrative in reality is misguided
as biblical writers employed a variety of literary techniques to create
structures for their narratives. Due to their flexibility and the fact that
they are embedded in the text, these techniques allow for the percep-
tion of multiple structures. As Bar-Efrat has noted, The limits of the
literary unit cannot be fixed a priori, but . . . they are dynamic and vary
according to the kind of questions the literary critic desires to pose,
provided of course that the delimiting of the unit has its justification
in the text.1 This should caution the literary critic against limiting a
texts boundaries rigidly, as different approaches will reveal different
structures. However, by employing various methods of determining
structure, the similarities between these structures will provide a firmer
ground for conclusions regarding the reality of a coherent structure
that is not merely the product of the interpreters imagination. When
attempting to assess the coherence of a narrative or discern unevenness
in the text (which has suggested the existence of different sources in a
text in the past), a clear and defensible understanding of a perceived
structure would obviously be of benefit.

1
Shimon Bar-Efrat, Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical
Narrative, VT 30 (1980): 154173.
88 chapter two

In the book of Kings each section that can be delimited as an indepen-


dent pericope is also part of a greater narrative. Each pericope has more
than one context that must be acknowledged and taken into account.
The following analyses employ various rhetorical-critical methods in an
attempt to delimit the textual boundaries and discern the structure(s)
of the Hezekiah macro-narrative in 2 Kings.

A. The Structure of the Hezekiah Macro-Narrative


The DH structures most of its narratives concerned with the monarchies
of Judah and Israel by employing royal frames that consist of regnal
rsums. The start and end of these regnal reports are framed by state-
ments that have a summative relationship (and often shared expressions)
which report the end of one monarchs reign and the beginning of that
of his successor. These succession formulas serve as the outer frames
of most regnal reports in the DH and the Hezekiah macro-narrative is
no exception, beginning (2 Kgs 18:12) and ending (2 Kgs 20:2021)
with a customary Deuteronomistic royal frame. The narrative form is
typical of regnal accounts in the book of Kings, giving an evaluation
of the reign of the monarch, and not just an account of the details of
his regency.2 Hezekiah is said to have done what was right ( )in
Yahwehs eyes as his ancestor David had done. The Hezekiah macro-
narrative is demarcated initially by this introductory look at Hezekiah
and the particulars of his life. The age of Hezekiah at his ascension to
the throne (25 years old), the length of his reign (29 years) and the
queen mothers identity and genealogical origin are all mentioned.3
The end of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is demarcated by a conclud-
ing regnal rsum in 2 Kgs 20:2021. This details some of his building
projects, referring the reader to another source for a fuller account of
these ventures, then closing with the succession of his son Manasseh to
the throne. This second part of the royal frame concludes the Hezekiah
macro-narrative.

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

waw-consecutive verb that follows it, it serves to initiate the paragraph.9


Using these syntactical clues with reference to demarcating paragraphs
in Hebrew narrative, a clearer picture of the structure of the Hezekiah
macro-narrative will be seen.
The structure of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is governed by the
waw-consecutive imperfect narrative form. The waw-consecutive
sequence is broken to begin new sections (that is, to terminate or initi-
ate new paragraphs), to provide extra information (off-line comments),
and to narrate direct discourse.10 Other than these standard divergences,
the waw-consecutive governs the entire narrative.
The Hezekiah macro-narrative begins with Hezekiahs regnal rsum
and is initiated by a standard construction of ( and it was) with
a perfect verb ( to reign) in 2 Kgs 18:1.11 This rsum consists
almost entirely of off-line comments that provide additional informa-
tion in a subsidiary line to the regular waw-consecutive backbone of
the narrative.12 A comment clause begins in 2 Kgs 18:2.13 This clause is
indicated by the use of ( to be) and another perfect verb ( to
reign) in the comment (2 Kgs 18:2). This device provides information
but does not propel the narrative along.14 The introduction continues
in 2 Kgs 18:3 with an unchained waw-consecutive imperfect ( and
he did). This is part of an off-line comment clause characterized by

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

multiple qatal, weqatal, yiqtol and unchained wayyiqtol verbs.15 The


use of multiple non-waw-consecutive verbs continues through to 2 Kgs
18:8 which concludes the off-line comments.16
Following Hezekiahs extended regnal rsum (2 Kgs 18:18) a new
paragraph is begun with the standard ( and it was) combined with
a perfect verb ( to go up) in 2 Kgs 18:9.17 This initiates a waw-
consecutive sequence that defines the balance of this section (2 Kgs
18:912).18 This waw-consecutive sequence is initiated by the perfect
(to go up). Second Kings 18:10 contains a perfect verb ( it was
captured) which provides explanatory information concerning when
Samaria was captured (at the beginning of this verse, a chained waw-
consecutive imperfect already had noted that Samaria was captured).19
The mainline waw-consecutive chain continues in 2 Kgs 18:11 with two
chained wayyiqtol verbs. Concluding this paragraph is another off-line

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

comment in 2 Kgs 18:12 which provides circumstantial information


and explicates the reasons Samaria fell.20 This comment is signalled
by a switch to perfect verbs, including two negated perfects (
they did not listen).
A new paragraph is initiated in 2 Kgs 18:13, again with the combi-
nation of a temporal marker ( and in
Hezekiahs fourteenth year) and a perfect verb ( to go up).21 As
with the last section, this initiates a waw-consecutive sequence depen-
dent on the aspect of the perfect verb.
This waw-consecutive chain of imperfects proceeds until 2 Kgs 18:16
where it is broken by a similar combination of temporal marker (
at that time) and perfect verb ( to cut). This initiates a new
paragraph governed by a new waw-consecutive chain of imperfects
that depends upon the perfect ( to cut) for its aspect.22 Within this
section direct discourse dominates, and non-wayyiqtol verbs are widely
employed within clauses of direct speech. However, the waw-consecutive
chain of imperfects provides the frame for these conversations (e.g.,
2 Kgs 18:19, 26, 28). In 2 Kgs 18:36 there is an inner-paragraph com-
ment which is syntactically indicated by the change to perfect verbs.23
The paragraph is terminated by a return to waw-consecutive imperfect
forms.24 Syntactically this sets 2 Kgs 18:1637 apart as a unit.

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

The next paragraph begins with the temporal marker


and it was when king Hezekiah heard (2 Kgs 19:1) which
initiates a new paragraph characterized by a waw-consecutive chain of
imperfects.25 This wayyiqtol chain is interrupted by direct discourse,
but these are still framed by the continued wayyiqtol chain (e.g., 2 Kgs
19:15, 20).26 There is also one off-line comment that is indicated by
the switch to perfect verbs (2 Kgs 19:8b).27 This section is dominated
by direct discourse and concludes without any explicit terminating
phenomena.28
The next paragraph, the climax of the narrative, is explicitly initi-
ated by a temporal marker and it was (2 Kgs 19:35) followed by a
waw-consecutive verb ( and he went forth) which initiates another
waw-consecutive sequence that proceeds through 2 Kgs 19:36. Finally,
the concluding paragraph of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative begins
with the standard ( and it was) combined with a perfect verb (
they smote). This paragraph concludes with a waw-consecutive imper-
fect verb ( and he reigned) in the closing note of the succession
of Esarhaddon to the throne.29
A new paragraph is initiated in 2 Kgs 20:1 with a temporal marker
( in those days) combined with a perfect verb ( to be
sick). This construction initiates a waw-consecutive chain of imperfects,
which form the backbone of this narrative. This chain is interrupted

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

in sections of direct discourse (e.g., 2 Kgs 20:1b, 3) but is framed by


the waw-consecutive chain (e.g., 2 Kgs 20:1a, 2). A new section is ini-
tiated in 2 Kgs 20:4 with ( and it was) and a perfect verb ( to
go forth). This initiates a waw-consecutive chain of imperfects that is
only interrupted by direct discourse (e.g., 2 Kgs 20:9b, 10b).30
The final pericope of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is initiated in
2 Kgs 20:12 with a temporal marker ( at that time) with a
perfect verb ( to send). Within this initial verse there is an off-line
comment with perfect verbs that gives circumstantial information but
are not part of the mainline of the narrative.31 This standard begin-
ning initiates a waw-consecutive chain of imperfects. Another off-line
comment is found in 2 Kgs 20:13b which is indicated by the switch to
perfect verbal forms (e.g., to be; to show). Second Kings
20:14 resumes the waw-consecutive chain of imperfects. Within direct
discourse more non-wayyiqtol verbs are found (as expected) but these
conversations are all framed by the waw-consecutive backbone (e.g.,
2 Kgs 20:15a, 16a, 19a).
The concluding frame of the Hezekiah macro-narrative begins in
2 Kgs 20:20 with the standard Deuteronomistic concluding phrase
the rest of the deeds (found 42 times in the book of Kings) and
is verbally signalled by the switch to a perfect verb ( to do).32 The
Hezekiah macro-narrative concludes with two terminal waw-consec-
utive imperfects.33 This clause plays double-duty to conclude both the
Hezekiah narrative and introduce the following Manasseh narrative.34
In sum, the distinct paragraphs within the Hezekiah macro-narrative
that are syntactically marked can be illustrated in this way:

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

Syntactically Marked Paragraphs in the Hezekiah-Macro Narrative 2 Kings 1820

I. Hezekiahs Regnal Rsum 18:18


II. Fall of Samaria 18:912
III. Invasion of Sennacherib & Hezekiahs Payment of Silver 18:1315
IV. Setting for and the Visit of the Assyrian Envoys 18:1637
V. Hezekiahs Response, the Renewed Assyrian threat and 19:134
Isaiahs Prophecy of Deliverance
VI. The Angelic Attack on the Assyrian Camp 19:3536
VII. The Murder of Sennacherib 19:37
VIII. Hezekiahs Illness and Recovery 20:111
IX. Visit of the Babylonian Envoys 20:1221

The syntactic analysis of these narratives is the foundation of our struc-


tural analysis. However, now this study will also examine other ways
in which this text creates structure.

2. Chronological and Temporal Markers


The narrated world of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is structured
according to different chronological situations, marked by the use of
temporal markers. It will become clear through our analysis that tem-
poral organization is an important structural device in the Hezekiah
narrative. There are different ways that the temporal situation is indi-
cated in Hebrew narrative. Some of these markers have a text-external
referent and attempt to correlate the world of the narrative with events
outside the narrative.35 Others coordinate the narrated world in rela-
tion to events in the narrative itself. Temporal markers are common
structural devices, but their roles as such are often overlooked. In the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative such markers have been analyzed to
determine the historicity of the narrative, rather than to discern their
function from a purely literary standpoint.36

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

Macro-structural temporal markers open or close sections at the


macro-level and effectively divide wider narratives into discrete peri-
copes. These markers can be either text-external (linking the narrated
world with extra-narrative events) or text-internal (synchronizing
what follows with previously narrated events). In the Hezekiah macro-
narrative, four temporal markers function on a text-external level link-
ing the narrated world with the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel.
These text-external temporal indicators mark three distinct sections of
the narrative. Two text-internal temporal indicators mark two other
distinct sections of the Hezekiah macro-narrative.

and it was in Hosheas third year (2 Kings 18:1)
The first of these text-external temporal markers demarcates the Heze-
kiah macro-narrative from what preceded it and is part of the initial
element of the royal frame already discussed. It links the narrated
world with the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel. This places the events
that follow in Hezekiahs first year of regency.37

and it was, in King Hezekiahs fourth year, that is, Hosheas seventh year
(2 Kings 18:9)
This second text-external temporal marker marks a new section.
Whereas the previous marker specified the beginning of Hezekiahs
reign, the second marker places the beginning of the siege of Samaria
in the fourth year of Hezekiahs reign and the seventh year of Hosheas
reign.38

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

(2 Kgs 20:111; 20:1219) make no attempt to link their narrated


world with a text-external referent. Probably the narrator has deliber-
ately avoided such referents due to the fact that the narrated events in
2 Kings 20 actually precede those narrated in 2 Kgs 18:1419:37.
These text-external temporal markers break the Hezekiah macro-
narrative into three distinct sections: 18:18; 18:912; 18:1320:21. The
narrative begins in Hezekiahs first year, progresses to his fourth through
sixth year, then focuses on the fourteenth year of Hezekiahs reign.
The last section (18:1320:21) of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is
further divided into three distinct sections itself. Once again, temporal
markers (this time text-internal markers) are employed to set apart each
section. As well, the initial of these three sections (2 Kgs 18:1319:37) is
concluded by a succession formula. This time it is a regnal formula for
Sennacherib as 2 Kgs 19:37 notes the accession of his son Esarhaddon to
the throne after him.41 The latter demarcates the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative from the rest of the Hezekiah macro-narrative.

and in those days (2 Kings 20:1)
This non-specific text-internal temporal marker separates the narrative
of Hezekiahs sickness and recovery from what precedes and introduces
this analepsis.42 Semantic considerations contribute to our discernment
of a discrete narrative here. The character constellations change from
the preceding section (from Sennacherib and his sons to Hezekiah and
Isaiah) and mark a break with the previous narrative.43 More signifi-
cant for this break is the change in the setting (when Hezekiah was
sick) and the subject matter (Hezekiahs imminent death) which both
indicate a significant break from the narrative that preceded it. These
semantic criteria clearly demarcate this as a discrete section, making

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

2 Kgs 20:111 a distinct section of the Hezekiah macro-narrative.


Also, it should be noted that the placement of this section after the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib section is a theological sequence and not a
mimetic depiction of events.44

at that time (2 Kings 20:12)
Earlier in the Hezekiah narrative this very text-internal temporal marker
indicated not a new narrative but only a new episode in the narrative
of which it is a part (see below). In 2 Kgs 20:12 it appears to cause a
more significant break and begin a new narrative that is distinct from
the previous one. This narrative chronologically follows the previous
section, as seen in the fact that the occasion for the visit of the envoys
is said to be Hezekiahs recovery from illness (2 Kgs 20:12). However,
does this sequentially indicate continuation of the former narrative or
merely place this narrative temporally in relation to the earlier one? The
solution to this problem cannot be found on purely syntactic grounds.
Here one needs to examine the context, setting and change in character
constellations to determine the significance of this disjunction.45 The
character constellations change (from Hezekiah and Isaiah to Hezekiah
and the Babylonian envoys) and mark a break with the previous nar-
rative.46 As well, the setting (when Babylonian envoys visited) and the
subject matter (the welcome and tour Hezekiah grants these envoys)
both indicate a significant break from the narrative that preceded it.
These semantic criteria clearly demarcate this as a discrete section, mak-
ing 2 Kgs 20:1219 the final section of the Hezekiah macro-narrative.
Following this section, and concluding the macro-narrative is the second
element of the royal frame in 2 Kgs 20:2021.

3. Sub-structural Temporal Markers


Within the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative (2 Kgs 18:1319:37) there
are sub-structural temporal markers that contribute to the structure of

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

this pericope. These temporal markers do not open or close sections at


the macro-level, but organize the time within the narrative at the sub-
structural level.47 As L. Jonker has put it, sub-structural organization
therefore provides indications of smaller communicative units within
the macro-structure.48 These markers are significant in determining
the relationships between diverse clauses within this pericope.

at that time (2 Kgs 18:16)
The first subunit of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative begins with
the temporal marker at that time. As Amit has observed, use of this
temporal marker is indication that here begins a new subject that is
related to the preceding sequence, so that in many cases they indicate
the beginning of a new story.49 Thus 2 Kgs 18:1637 is set apart as a
subunit.

and when King Hezekiah heard (2 Kings 19:1)
A common syntactic construction ( + + infinitive construct) forms
this marker. It sets apart what follows (2 Kgs 19:134) as a subunit of
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative marking plot development.50 It
functions to synchronize the events about to be narrated in relation to
narrated events that preceded them.

and so it happened on that night (2 Kings 19:35)
This marker introduces the climax of the narrative and marks the night
the angel of Yahweh attacks Sennacheribs forces as the very same night
that Isaiah utters his prophecy in the previous verse.51 It marks a new

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

subsection and returns to pure narration as opposed to the elaborate


dialogue that characterized the previous sections.

and while he was worshipping (2 Kings 19:37)
This final temporal marker sets apart the final subunit of the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative. This marker is non-specific and does not attempt
an exact synchronization with previous markers. The focus is not
on a specific day, but an unspecified day when Sennacherib is in
Nineveh and worshipping in the temple of his god. This expression
collapses narrated time and allows the fulfilment of the second half
of Isaiahs first prophecy, that Sennacherib would be killed in his own
land (2 Kgs 19:7), to be narrated seemingly without an awareness of
a great time gap.52
In sum, our analysis has demonstrated that temporal organization is
an important structural device in the Hezekiah macro-narrative. This
temporal organization clearly divides the narrative into five distinct
sections: 1) 2 Kgs 18:18; 2) 18:912; 3) 18:1319:37; 4) 20:111; 5)
20:1219. The first three sections are divided by text-external temporal
markers, while the last two sections are demarcated by non-specific
text-internal markers. As noted above, the reason the author avoids text-
external markers for the last two sections may be due to the fact that in
actuality they precede the events already narrated in section three.

B. The Structure of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative


The third section of the Hezekiah macro-narrative is clearly emphasized
as most important among the five sections. This can be seen in the
way the author extends time and retards the narrative action. While
six years of time pass in the first twelve verses of the Hezekiah macro-
narrative, the next sixty-one verses all occur in Hezekiahs fourteenth
year.53 This emphasis is also seen in the sheer length of its narration as

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

Structural Outline of 2 Kings 1820 Based on Temporal Markers

I. Regnal Report 18:18


II. Fall of Samaria 18:912
III. Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative 18:1319:37
A. Setting for and Visit of Assyrian Envoys 18:1637
B. Hezekiahs Response, the Renewed Assyrian threat and 19:134
Isaiahs Prophecy of Deliverance
C. The Angelic Attack on the Assyrian Camp and 19:3536
Sennacheribs Retreat
D. The Murder of Sennacherib 19:37
IV. Hezekiahs Sickness and Recovery 20:111
V. Visit of Babylonian Envoys 20:1221

the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative dwarfs the other sections in regard


to length.54 Not only this, but it is clearly placed literarily before events
that actually precede its narratives chronologically.55 This chronological
reversal would be clear to any close reader since the narrative concerned
with Hezekiahs sickness and recovery (2 Kgs 20:111) predicts the
deliverance of Jerusalem from the hand of the king of Assyria (2 Kgs
20:6).56 Its initial placement, out of chronological order, may also be an
indication of its relative import to the Hezekiah macro-narrative.

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

Having established the textual boundaries of the pericopes within


the Hezekiah macro-narrative and the structure(s) which subdivide
it into discrete sections, this study will now focus on the structure of
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Our analysis will: 1) take into
account the presence of discrete scenes; 2) draw attention to the spa-
tial structure of the narrative; and 3) analyze the plot structure of the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative.

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

Scenes within the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative

1. Initial Encounter Between Sennacherib and Hezekiah 18:1315


2. Hezekiah Despoils the Temple and Palace Treasuries 18:16
3. Hezekiahs Officials Meet with Sennacheribs Officials 18:1736
4. The Reactions of Hezekiah and Isaiah to the Rabshakehs Threats 18:3719:7
5. Rabshakeh Returns to Sennacherib and Messengers are Sent Again 19:813
6. The Reactions of Hezekiah and Isaiah to the Second Assyrian Threat 19:1434
7. The Angelic Attack and Sennacheribs Retreat 19:3536
8. The Murder of Sennacherib 19:37

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

once again (2 Kgs 19:2034), followed by the climactic angelic attack


on the Assyrian camp (19:35). Falling action is seen as Sennacherib
returns to Nineveh (2 Kgs 19:36) and finally resolution is reached as he
is murdered in the temple of his god (2 Kgs 19:37). While not follow-
ing a typical plot structure, it appears coherent with logical progression
throughout.65
Such complex plot structures are not necessarily rare.66 Often when
two plot structures reveal a great deal of similarity it suggests the pos-
sibility that the two may be based on a similar model. Alter has made
a compelling case for the existence of several type-scenes in biblical
narrative that reflect ancient literary conventions.67 Type scenes are
conventional, patterned stories that were familiar to the original audi-
ence. The type-scene could be varied, with different elements added
or excluded in each instance. The type-scene follows a fixed recogniz-
able pattern; however, it was often changed or manipulated to suit the
authors purpose.68
The recognition of a type-scene in an ancient work such as the OT/
HB is fraught with difficulties since the keys to many ancient literary
conventions have been lost (due not only to the passage of time, but to
the minute body of literary works that have survived).69 This is unfor-
tunate as the recognition of literary conventions, such as a type-scene,
is integral to a coherent reading of any literary work.70
As noted in the source-critical analysis above, in the Hezekiah-Sen-
nacherib narrative the second account of the sending of messengers to
Jerusalem with a nearly identical message has been widely repudiated
as a doublet that is the result of a parallel source.71 However, perhaps

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

the twofold sending of messengers to a city under military duress is a


type-scene of its own and not the result of parallel sources.72
The standard expressiveness of this type-scene could be described as
follows. A local city is under military threat by a hostile foreign nation.
The latter sends messengers into the local city with demands twice.
Initial demands are agreed to, but then the foreign nation makes even
further demands. A prophet twice encourages the local king, predict-
ing that God will deliver them from this hostile foreign nation. The
initial prophecy results in only partial fulfilment. The second prophecy
is prompted by the blasphemous words of the foreign king and its
promises echo the prediction of the first prophecy. Finally, the divine
deliverance, which results in an extremely high number of foreign
casualties, is fully accomplished only after the second prophecy.
This complex plot structure is not unique but is seen in another
biblical narrative located in 1 Kgs 20:130.73 Finding this pattern in this
passage is significant as its literary unity is relatively free of disputes.74
The integrity of 1 Kgs 20:134 is defended in various studies.75 There-
fore, if the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative follows a similar pattern, its
narrative structure cannot be used as an argument against its unity.
In 1 Kgs 20:134, Samaria is the local city under threat and Syria
is the hostile foreign nation. In this narrative Syrian messengers are

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

A prophet, Isaiah, prophesies deliverance employing a formulaic


expression ( thus says Yahweh; 2 Kgs 19:6). Isaiah pre-
dicts that the foreign monarch, Sennacherib, will hear a rumour and
return ( )to his land (2 Kgs 19:7).82 This initial prophecy is partially
fulfilled as the next verse (2 Kgs 19:8) records a return and the hearing
of a rumour, but Sennacherib does not return to his land. Blasphemous
words are spoken by the foreign monarch (in this case, through the
agency of his messengers), claiming that Judahs God will deceive them
(2 Kgs 19:10).83 This blasphemy prompts the prophet to give another
oracle, once again using a formulaic prophetic expression
(thus says Yahweh; 2 Kgs 19:20, 32). This second prophecy quotes the
blasphemous words of the foreign monarch (2 Kgs 19:23) and partially
reiterates the promised deliverance of the initial prophecythat Sen-
nacherib would return ( )to his land (2 Kgs 19:28, 33). This time
the prophecy is fulfilled as 185,000 Assyrians are slaughtered (2 Kgs
19:35) and the foreign king himself returns to his land as predicted
(2 Kgs 19:36). There he falls by the sword (2 Kgs 19:37) according to
the initial prophecy of Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:7).
Contrary to the story in 1 Kings 20, the narrative here progresses
very slowly, the result of an extensive use of dialogue.84 In the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative, the speech of the messengers, the response of the
local king and the oracles of the prophet are all much more elaborate
compared to their counterparts in 1 Kings 20. However, the narration
of the actual military conflicts in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is
even more terse than those narrated in 1 Kings 20. Whether the con-
cise or more elaborate version of this patterned scene was archetypal
is impossible to establish and irrelevant for our purposes. Due to the
limited corpus available to the literary critic, how the author of each
pericope has employed this conventional patterned scene differently
is difficult to determine. While only conjecture, it may be that Ahabs
negotiations with the foreign monarch rather than the latters execution

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

in 1 Kings 20 is a deliberate variation from the normal pattern.85 Con-


temporary audiences who were familiar with the conventions would
have found Ahabs actions in this case appalling. Of course, this
presentation of Ahab is consistent with his characterization in other
stories. His actions here point to his culpability for the later defeat of
his people, Israel.86
Concerning the integrity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, the
recognition of a common pattern between these two scenes is significant.
While earlier source critics found inconsistency in the progression of
the narrative, seeing the pattern in another pericope greatly mitigates
these judgments. While labelling this pattern a type-scene and a
common ancient literary convention may be open to question (and
is ultimately unverifiable), the recognition of the similarities between
these two pericopes is a strong argument in favour of their purposeful,
logical, coherence.87

C. Conclusions on the Structure of the


Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative
The above analyses of the structure of the Hezekiah-macro narrative
have demonstrated how the narrative is organized and ordered in
various ways. These analyses suggest that the narrative consists of five
units functioning as independent sections (2 Kgs 18:18, 2 Kgs 18:912;
2 Kgs 18:1319:37; 2 Kgs 20:111, 2 Kgs 20:1221). The Hezekiah-Sen-
nacherib narrative itself comprises at least twelve discernable elements
(paragraphs, scenes or scene parts within this pericope).88 Detailed
analysis of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative has revealed: syntactical
integrity of the pericope, discernable units within the narrative linked
to temporal progression, symmetry in spatial structure, coherent scene
progression, and a plot structure perhaps based on a type-scene. These
results can be illustrated in the following table that incorporates our

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

analysis of: syntactical markers, temporal markers, scene identification,


and spatial structure.

D. The Integrity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative


Having established the textual boundaries and literary structure of both
the Hezekiah macro-narrative and the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narra-
tive, this study will now employ several common rhetorical-critical
approaches to the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative (2 Kgs 18:1319:37)
in an effort to assess further its integrity. However, as already noted,
the narrative is part of larger narratives as well and these contexts must
be taken into account because it is difficult to define distinct literary
units rigidly. As Bar Efrat has observed: In the Bible narratives which
are more or less complete in themselves link up with one another so as
to create larger literary units. In other words, narratives which on the

Table 15

Structural Outline of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 2 Kings 1819

I. Invasion of Sennacherib (Scene 1; syntactically and temporally 18:1315


marked off; the military campaign implicitly begins in Assyria,
then the locale switches to the Assyrian camp)
II. Setting for (Scene 2: syntactically and temporally marked off ) 18:1618:37
and Visit of Assyrian Envoys (Scene 3; located at Jerusalem)
A. The Rabshakehs Speech 18:1935
III. Response to the Assyrians Threats (Scene 4; located at 18:369:7
Jerusalem)
A. The Response of Hezekiahs Officials 18:3637
B. Hezekiahs Response (syntactically and temporally 19:14
marked off )
C. Isaiahs Prophecy 19:57
IV. The Rabshakehs Response to Hezekiahs Resistance (Scene 5; 19:813
located at the Assyrian camp then at Jerusalem)
A. The Second Speech 19:1013
V. Response to the Assyrians Threats (Scene 6; located at 19:1434
Jerusalem)
A. Hezekiahs Response 19:1419
1. Hezekiahs Prayer 19:1619
B. Isaiahs Prophecy 19:2034
VI. The Angelic Attack and Assyrian Retreat (Scene 7; 19:3536
syntactically and temporally marked off; located at the
Assyrian Camp)
VII. The Murder of Sennacherib (Scene 8; syntactically and 19:37
temporally marked off; located in Assyria)
112 chapter two

one hand can be considered as self-contained units may be regarded on


the other hand as parts of larger wholes.89 By and large the following
analysis will confine itself to the beginning of the Hezekiah narrative
from the beginning of 2 Kings 18 through to the end of chapter 19.90

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

where Hezekiah asks Sennacherib to withdraw ( )from him. This


key word sets out the narrative goal of the plot: getting Sennacherib to
withdraw.97 This goal occupies the entire narrative until its climax and
is a prominent theme. The word occurs again in 2 Kgs 18:24 where the
Rabshakeh points out that the Judeans are incapable of causing such a
withdrawal when he questions, How then can you repulse ( )a
single captain among the least of my lords servants?98 In fact Cogan
and Tadmor point out that the meaning of repulse with military
overtones . . . is unattested.99 Therefore, the use of with this meaning
seems a clear effort to point to withdrawal as an important theme.
The next occurrence of withdraw is found in the prophecy of Isaiah
in 2 Kgs 19:7 where the prophet predicts that the Assyrian shall indeed
withdraw. This prophecy comes to seemingly immediate fulfilment
in the following two verses where both the Rabshakeh (v. 8) and Sen-
nacherib (v. 9) himself withdraw. The next occurrence of this key
word is located in the prophetic speech where Yahweh declares that
he, himself, will cause Sennacherib to withdraw (2 Kgs 19:28). Then in
2 Kgs 19:33 Isaiah predicts again that Sennacherib will indeed with-
draw which finds near immediate fulfilment in v. 36 where Sennacherib
finally does withdraw, returning to his own land as predicted. The key
word withdraw clearly provides both thematic cohesion and narrative
direction to the entire unit.

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

hear/listen. In 2 Kgs 18:12 the verb is found twice, emphasizing the


reason for the Assyrian conquest: because they did not listen ( )to
the voice of Yahweh their God but transgressed his covenantall that
Moses the servant of Yahweh had commandedthey neither listened
( )nor obeyed. This sets up the next narrative: how will this new
Assyrian campaign end? Will Judah fall to the same fate as its northern
sister? Proper listening becomes a motif of the Sennacherib narrative.
In 2 Kgs 18:26 the Judean officers entertaining the Rabshakeh ask
him to speak in Aramaic because they understand ( )it; literally,
they say they are listeners. Unlike the people of Samaria who were
indicted for not listening, these Judean officers claim they are listen-
ers; the reader cannot fault them with not hearing. The exact same
expression occurs eight times in the OT/HB and invariably has
a positive connotation.103 In fact, it is common in prophetic literature
to describe proper response to the prophetic word.104 This declaration
by the Judeans that they are listeners may actually foreshadow a posi-
tive result for these Judeans.105
The next three occurrences can be taken together as communicating
the same message. In 2 Kgs 18:28 the Rabshakeh commands the people
of Jerusalem to listen to the word of Sennacherib the great king of
Assyria. In 2 Kgs 18:31 and 32, the Rabshakeh then exhorts these same
people not to listen to Hezekiah. The issue of listening continues to
be a thematic device running through the narrative. Having been set
up by the initial occurrences in 2 Kgs 18:12, the reader knows that the
issue is not just hearing but hearing the right voice.
In 2 Kgs 19:1 Hezekiah hears what the Rabshakeh has threatened
and takes the appropriate pious actions of rending his clothes and don-
ning sackcloth. However, his actions are not of resignation. In 2 Kgs
19:4 we see Hezekiahs hope: that Yahweh, too, has heard. Here there
is special emphasis on Yahwehs hearing as the verb is repeated twice

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

in this verse; both times connected to Yahweh your God. If anything


will turn the situation around it will be Yahwehs act of hearing.
This hearing results in the speaking of the prophetic word, where
our next two occurrences of ( to hear) are. Isaiah acknowledges
that the Judeans have heard but exhorts them not to fear (2 Kgs 19:6).
They need not fear because Yahweh will make this Assyrian hear a
rumour that will cause him to leave (2 Kgs 19:7). Once again, hearing
is an important part of the narrative and looks to become an important
part of the plot.
No sooner has the prophetic word been spoken than it is fulfilled.
Second Kings 19:89 records the Assyrian hearing two different
things. In v. 8 Rabshakeh hears that his king has moved from Lachish
to Libnah, and so follows him there. Then someone hears or listens
to Tirhakah of Cush. The Assyrians are listening to the wrong voices,
and this will spell their doom.
In 2 Kgs 19:11 the Assyrians again address Jerusalem and remind
them that they have heard how Assyria has devastated other lands. The
rhetoric is thick as they try to intimidate Jerusalem into surrender. Yet
these Judeans have already been told by the prophet not to be afraid
of what they hear from these Assyrians.
In 2 Kgs 19:16 once again Yahwehs hearing is emphasized with two
occurrences of the verb in one verse. Piously, Hezekiah approaches
Yahweh and twice implores him to hear, with both occurrences in the
imperative. Yahweh is asked to hear Hezekiahs prayer and to hear
the blasphemous words of Sennacherib. In 2 Kgs 19:20 Isaiah informs
Hezekiah that indeed, Yahweh has heard his prayer and will act.
The last occurrence of this key word is found in 2 Kgs 19:25. This
time it is Yahweh speaking and he castigates Sennacherib himself for
not hearing. Sennacherib has not heard that it really is Yahweh who
determined his success (as the Rabshakeh was claiming in 2 Kgs 18:25).
This lack of hearing spells Sennacheribs defeat. Yahweh will turn Sen-
nacherib around like the beast of burden he is: I will put my hook in
your nose and my bit in your mouth; I will turn you back on the way
by which you came (2 Kgs 19:28b).
Hearing is clearly a unifying theme in the narrative: lack of hearing
caused destruction for Samaria; the question of whom to hear was
debated between the Rabshakeh and Hezekiahs officers; Yahwehs
hearing was clearly emphasized with four occurrences of the verb con-
nected with him; and finally, Sennacheribs arrogant refusal to hear
determined his fate.
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 117

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

The issue of trust is central to the narrative.111 There is an inclusio of


sorts mentioning Hezekiahs trust in Yahweh (2 Kgs 18:5 and 2 Kgs
19:10) serving as bookends for the trusting of the people of Jerusalem,
which the Rabshakeh tries to shake.112 The trust of Hezekiah in his God,
emphasized at both ends, is proven well-founded by the conclusion of
the narrative where Yahweh indeed proves himself trustworthy.113

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.

i) Positive Characterization Hezekiah is directly characterized in


positive terms by the narrator. Near the beginning of the Hezekiah
macro-narrative, the narrator directly evaluates Hezekiah in extremely
positive terms. He states, There was no one like [Hezekiah] among all
the kings of Judah after him, or among those who were before him
(2 Kgs 18:5); Yahweh was with him (2 Kgs 18:7a);137 he did what
was right in the eyes of Yahweh as David his father had (2 Kgs 18:3);
he trusted ( )and clung ( )to Yahweh;138 and he kept the
commandments that Yahweh commanded Moses (2 Kgs 18:6);139 Fur-
thermore, unlike similar assessments of other Judean kings, Hezekiahs
excellence is not qualified.140
Hezekiahs own speech also serves to characterize him positively.141
When Hezekiah sends his servants to relay a message to Isaiah, Hezekiah
describes the situation as a mutual crisis for Judah and for Yahweh: This
day is a day of distress, of rebuke, and of blasphemy (( )2 Kgs

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

19:3a).142 Hezekiah seems most concerned with Yahwehs reputation


and the sacrilege inherent in the Assyrian threats. After repeating what
must have been a popular proverb (2 Kgs 19:3b), Hezekiah explicitly
calls attention to the blasphemies of the Rabshakeh and raises the pos-
sibility that Yahweh has heard them and will act (2 Kgs 19:4). It would
be hard to find a better way to accentuate Hezekiahs piety.
Upon hearing the second threat of the Assyrians, Hezekiah prays
directly to Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:1520).143 It is significant that the only
kings who pray directly to Yahweh in the DH are David, Solomon and
Hezekiah.144 Given the evaluation of Hezekiah as having done right
in Yahwehs eyes as his father David had done (2 Kgs 18:3) the fact
he prays should not be surprising. Hezekiahs prayer once again shows
him analogous to David and makes for a very positive characterization.
The piety of the Judean monarch is unquestionably highlighted in his
devout responses to the Assyrian threats.
The reported actions of Hezekiah also imply a similar characterization
for him.145 As Bar-Efrat has asserted, Action is the implementation of
character and in Hezekiahs case we see his character disclosed through
his actions in this time of crisis.146 In 2 Kgs 18:4 Hezekiah is described as
abolishing cult sites outside of Jerusalem (and the paraphernalia associ-
ated with them) as well as purifying worship in the Jerusalem temple

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

through the removal and destruction of an idolatrous appurtenance


(Nehushatan). These actions are at the level of inference, but function
quite clearly as intimating a positive character for Hezekiah.147
It is also reported that Hezekiah successfully attacked the Philistines
(2 Kgs 18:8). Since the Philistines are the traditional enemies of Israel
and were the predominant enemy of David, these military conquests
function to support further a positive characterization for Hezekiah.
Furthermore, in reporting Hezekiahs aggression against the Philistines,
the narrator contrasts Hezekiahs actions with the actions of the now
exiled northern Israel through an inter-textual link: Israel built high
places from watchtower to fortified city (2 Kgs 17:9) but Hezekiah
instead strikes ( )the Philistines from watchtower to fortified city
(the only two places in the OT/HB where this phrase occurs).148

ii) Possible Negative Characterization Hezekiahs first words in the


Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative could function to characterize him
negatively.149 In his initial response to Sennacheribs invasion Hezekiah
confesses that he has sinned ( ;2 Kgs 18:14). Although Hezekiahs
confession seems straightforward enough, it is not a true revelation
of his character.150 Far from being a reliable statement that accurately
reflects Hezekiahs character, irony fills 2 Kgs 18:14 as Hezekiah con-
fesses his sin and claims fault for the predicament his nation is in.
Sennacherib, not Hezekiah, causes Judahs crisis, yet Hezekiah intercedes
for his kingdom, while the Assyrian claims Yahwistic patronage (2 Kgs
18:25). Though responsibility for Judahs plight is not his, nevertheless,
as king, Hezekiah attempts to bring to an end the Assyrian aggression
against Judah. Though innocent, Hezekiah asks that he bear ( )the
consequences so Judah might be saved. These words clearly function
to characterize Hezekiah positively presenting him as a valorous king.
Therefore, even in the putative Account A, we have a very positive
characterization of Hezekiah.

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

Even more than Hezekiahs initial words in response to the invasion


of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:1416), Hezekiahs first reported actions have
been viewed as reflecting negatively on him. Hezekiah takes precious
metals from the temple and his own palace to placate the Assyrian
tyrant. While the plundering of his own treasury could be viewed as
a self-sacrificial act that reflects well on Hezekiah, utilizing the temple
treasuries to mollify Sennacherib appears to reflect negatively on the
Judean monarch. This action may show a lack in Hezekiahs piety,
where the pragmatic needs of the present outweighed the holiness of
the sanctuary and its treasures. However, alternatively, it could show
that Hezekiah was a faithful king, willing to sacrifice everything at his
disposal to preserve his people, the holy city and even the sanctuary
from destruction.
To assess the inference of reporting Hezekiahs appropriation of
temple treasures, an examination of other instances of Judean monarchs
who act similarly is necessary.151 Asa draws on the temple riches to bribe
the Arameans in 1 Kgs 15:1622. Whether the appropriation of temple
treasuries was seen as negative in Asas case is ambiguous.152 In light of
our present investigation, it is interesting that Asa is assessed positively
in direct statements by the narrator, as is Hezekiah.153 Whether or not
dipping into temple funds was meant to present a negative aspect of
Asa is unclear. Even if it was to be viewed negatively, it was clearly

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

not a major roadblock to his positive characterization in the rest of


the narrative.
The next Judean monarch to withdraw monies from the temple
treasuries is Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:8). Like Asa, Ahaz uses these treasures
to bribe his way out of military duress.154 Unlike, Hezekiah and Asa,
Ahaz is characterized negatively by the narrator (2 Kgs 16:24). Yet
this criticism is not explicitly linked to his appropriation of temple
monetary resources. In fact, the comparison of the accounts of these
three kings in the DH would seem to suggest that appropriating the
temple treasuries was not necessarily a deplorable action. Though all
three monarchs took precious metals from the temple, only Ahaz was
characterized negatively, and the reasons for such characterization are
explicitly laid outyet they do not include his appropriation of temple
treasures in times of crisis.155 This leaves Hezekiahs actions in this regard
ambiguous.156 There appears to be no precedent to mark them clearly

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

as negative.157 In fact, they could be seen as heroic, since Hezekiah is


defending Jerusalem and his people by such actions.158
Other actions of Hezekiah that could be viewed negatively are his
sending of three officials to match the three from Assyria, rather than
giving them an audience with himself (2 Kgs 18:18). This action could
be interpreted as cowardice, indicating that Hezekiah was too afraid to
face the Assyrian officials himself. However, it is more likely that this
was either standard procedure in such instances (sending officials to
match officials) or a further act of defiance against his overlords (by
refusing to give them an audience with the king).159
In 2 Kgs 18:22 the Rabshakeh makes direct, negative comments
about Hezekiah, suggesting that he has affronted Yahweh by his acts of
reform. This Assyrian spin doctor further makes comments disparaging
Hezekiahs trustworthiness, claiming that the Judean king will deceive
( )his people (2 Kgs 18:29). The Rabshakeh also claims that Hezekiah
is in alliance with Egypt. Given the biblical disposition towards reliance
on Egypt, this would appear to characterize Hezekiah negatively in this
narrative as he would not be solely relying on Yahweh.160 However,
when other characters make comments in a narrative, the reader is

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

forced to weigh claims to determine characterization.161 In the context


of the narrative, the comments of Rabshakeh are clearly unreliable and
function more to characterize the Assyrians as misguided than to throw
some doubt on Hezekiahs character.162 He is an unreliable character
and such accusations are little more than slander in the context of the
narrative (even if such an alliance did in fact exist in reality as many
scholars have argued).163
In sum, Hezekiah is presented in a positive light in all of the putative
accounts posited by the Stade-Childs hypothesis. Even the presentation
of Hezekiah appropriating temple treasures to appease Sennacherib
may not reflect negatively on the Judean king. As well, Hezekiahs
speech in the putative Account A functions to characterize Hezekiah as
a positive character rather than reflecting negatively upon him. Thus,
there is no contradiction in the presentation of Hezekiah between the
putative accounts.

iii) Hezekiah as a Complex Character Literary critics often classify


characters into two main types: flat and round.164 Flat characters are
said to be one-dimensional and show little progression throughout a
narrative, instead remaining static.165 Round characters, on the other
hand, are more complexmore given to change and development in a
story. The progression of Hezekiahs character can be seen by comparing
his responses to the two Assyrian threats. Upon hearing the report of
his three officials regarding the initial threats of the Rabshakeh, Heze-
kiah tears his garments and dons sackcloth (2 Kgs 19:1). These actions
clearly show his mourning over the calamitous situation.166 Hezekiah
subsequently enters into the house of Yahweh, though what exactly he

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

does there is not mentioned. We could possibly assume that he also


sent others to Isaiah to request prophetic intercession.167 The role of the
king requesting intercession from a prophet is not unprecedented and
probably was common.168 Isaiah responds with an oracle of salvation
promising that the king of Assyria would return to his homeland and
be killed. While the actual relaying of this message to the king is not
recounted in the narrative, it can safely be assumed that such com-
munication took place.169 The response of Hezekiah to the salvation
oracle is not described.
Upon hearing the second Assyrian threat (2 Kgs 19:1013) Hezekiah
once again enters the house of Yahweh. However, this time he does
not rend his garments or dress in sackcloth. Instead he is described as
simply proceeding to the temple where he spreads out the Assyrian
letter-threat before Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:14). There appears to be a change
of demeanour in this second trip to the temple. No signs of mourning or
panic are present.170 Instead it explicitly states that he prays to Yahweh
himself.171 It would appear that the first oracle of Isaiah had heartened
Hezekiah, reassuring him of the eventual retreat of the Assyrian army,
so that he now prays directly to Yahweh himself.172 Second Samuel 7

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

provides a good analogy in this regard when David prays to Yahweh


after Nathan has delivered an oracle to him. David says, Therefore,
[that is, on the basis of the oracle already spoken by the prophet] your
servant has found courage to pray this prayer to you (2 Sam 7:27).
Hezekiah is a complex character who undergoes development in the
narrative. Only on the presupposition that this is a doublet and by
discounting the possibility of character progression does this action
seem out of step with the character of Hezekiah.

b. Eliakim, Shebna and Joah


These three servants of Hezekiah come out to meet the three-person
envoy of Assyrian officials upon their arrival (2 Kgs 18:18). Initially it is
not mentioned whether they are there under orders from Hezekiah or
not; however, it can probably be assumed that they are, since the kings
command is mentioned later (2 Kgs 18:36), implying royal authorization
for their mission. They appear to carry out their orders faithfully. In
2 Kgs 18:26 we find the only instance of their direct speech when they
implore the Assyrians to speak Aramaic so as to prevent the citizens of
Jerusalem from hearing their threats. This attempt to keep the Assyrian
message from reaching the ears of the people on the wall of Jerusalem
does not appear to be malicious but noble. Immediately before the
request to switch languages, the Rabshakeh asserts that Yahweh the God
of Jerusalem has sent the Assyrians to destroy the city (2 Kgs 18:25).
This blasphemy is the impetus for the request for linguistic change by
these Judean officials (2 Kgs 18:26).173 This casts their actions in a very
positive light. They are attempting to stifle the blasphemy by prevent-
ing it from having a larger audience. Finally, when the Rabshakeh has
finished his threats, these officials piously rend their clothes and faith-
fully report what was said to Hezekiah. We see Eliakim and Shebna
once more after this as they faithfully relate Hezekiahs message to the
prophet Isaiah.174 The characterization of these officials is consistent and
their actions completely explicable in the narrative. Only by arbitrarily

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.

II. The Ramifications of Rhetorical Analysis for


Source Analysis

The above rhetorical analysis has ramifications for a source-critical


analysis of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. Our critique of the
Stade-Childs hypothesis left us with little solid ground to support these
source-critical conclusions. Many of the arguments marshalled in its
favour were undermined in our initial critique of the hypothesis, with
only several problems remaining: the parallel structure and content of
the putative B1 and B2 sources; explaining the visit of Assyrian emis-
saries after the payment of tribute; the fear of Hezekiah, despite Isaiahs
word of assurance; Hezekiahs diverse reactions to the Assyrian threat
(temple looting or temple pilgrimage). In addition, our fresh source-
critical proposal made much of the supposed divergent characteriza-
tion of Hezekiahs officials in the different sections of the narrative.
However, our rhetorical analysis has greatly undermined the strength
of all these arguments.
The parallel structure may not be indicative of parallel sources
at all but instead may be owing to a traditional type scene. Such a
type scene may lie behind the dual deployments of emissaries in both

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

1 Kings 20 and the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. As well, the second


sending of emissaries appears to add purposefully to the drama (creat-
ing suspense) and rhetoric (as the Assyrians progress from accusing
Hezekiah of deception to attributing deception to Yahweh himself ) of
the narrative rather than function superfluously.
The perceived logical inconsistency in the sending of emissaries to
Jerusalem after Hezekiahs payment of tribute was found compelling at
first. However, the logical connection between the two sections cannot
be dismissed so easily. The recognition that a type scene (analogous to
that of 1 King 20) may lie behind this pericope has undermined this
evidence. As noted above, in the traditional type scene, the aggressor
continues his attack despite the fulfilment of demands by the attacked
party. The second, unexpected, threat demands total surrender rather
than mere further payment. Thus, the second mission of Assyrian emis-
saries in 2 Kings 19 is not illogical or necessarily owing to its origins
in a parallel source.
Our examination of the characterization of Hezekiah, and his three
officials has shown that the contrast in characterizations of the char-
acters highlighted in our fresh source-critical analysis was contrived
and failed to allow character development or even varying actions of
characters in the drama. Hezekiahs actions in utilizing temple treasur-
ies by no means necessarily function to characterize him negatively but
conversely may typify him as heroic. Hezekiahs fear is not referenced
in the narrative and his reaction to the second Assyrian threat shows
character progression as he was clearly emboldened by the first Isaianic
prophecy. As well, contrary to suggestions in our fresh source-critical
analysis, Eliakim, Shebna and Joah are consistently characterized as
faithful servants of Hezekiah and their actions are completely explicable
within the context of the narrative.
Efforts at isolating sources frequently employed circular argumenta-
tion and arbitrary division of even miniscule sections of the pericope. As
well, our rhetorical analysis has drawn attention to purposeful syntactic
connections between what had been thought to be disparate sources,
and has undermined these proposed source demarcations.
In addition to undermining arguments for disunity, our rhetorical
study would support the integrity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib nar-
rative. 1) An apparently purposefully symmetrical spatial structure
straddling all putative sources was observed. The recognition of this
artful structure militates against a view of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
a rhetorical-critical approach to the problem 135

narrative that posits a haphazard connection between literary units


or the superfluous nature of one unit to the whole. There is clearly a
formal connection between the units that is evidence of its intentional
design and supports the integrity of the narrative. 2) Our analysis also
highlighted key words within the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative which
demonstrated lexical and thematic cohesion within the narrative. 3) A
chiasm (2 Kgs 19:79) was found cutting across B1 and B2 lines. Any
source analysis that interrupts this pattern and posits merely fortuitous
circumstances to explain its existence is improbable. 4) Several instances
of repetition were found which showed unity across putative sources
and speak to the integrity of the narrative.
As noted above, 2 Kgs 19:4 and 19:19 contained verbatim repeti-
tion of to mock the living God () , which includes an
identical unique name for God. Any source-critical explanation for the
origins of this text must take into account these parallel statements in
both so-called B sources. If the putative B1 and B2 sources are taken
to be independent parallel/variant versions how can one account for
the parallel of this rare phrase in each?176 It would appear that if they
do reflect distinct sources: 1) they both drew on a common source;
2) one must be have been written in light of the other; 3) the redac-
tor has skilfully entwined one account by borrowing on the other; or
4) one author wrote the entire narrative. The first option seems least
likely and requires us to multiply hypotheses needlessly. The second
allows for extensive creative writing on the part of the redactor (begging
the question of the suitability of the term for such a writer). The third
option nearly approaches Bartons disappearing redactor.177 The last
option would explain these repetitions, but perhaps makes the narra-
tive less reliable in many scholars eyes. In these explanations we can
see the tension in Noths work regarding Dtr arise. Noth drew atten-
tion to Dtrs status as true author and not as redactor. Yet when Noth
describes Dtrs method it would appear to be that of editing/redacting.
It is reasonable to assume that Dtr relied on sources, but nevertheless
wrote a unified narrative.

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

REREADING THE HEZEKIAHSENNACHERIB NARRATIVE

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

The preliminary events of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative record


Hezekiahs extended regnal rsum (2 Kgs 18:18) where the narrator
gives a rare positive evaluation of a monarch in the DH. The reader is
told that Hezekiah trusted in Yahweh (v. 5) and kept Moses com-
mandments (v. 6). As expected for one so pious and obedient, we are
told in 2 Kgs 18:7 that Yahweh was with him and that whatever he
did prospered (). This sets the stage for the complication to fol-
low. Hezekiah had done what was right in Gods eyes, yet, despite the
Deuteronomistic tendency for good things to happen to good kings
and bad things to bad kings, a crisis arises that, at first appearances,
threatens to break this law of retribution.1

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

of and with the accusative being a town or city; to seize possession


or to conquer.6 Clearly this describes more than an attack on these
cities, but a successful assault that resulted in the capture of the said
municipalities.
However, we must discern whether Jerusalem is to be counted among
these fortified cities. The text says ( all) of the fortified cities were
captured/conquered and, obviously, Jerusalem is fortified. However,
the narrative would make no sense if this verse tells us plainly that
Jerusalem had been captured/conquered already.7 Also, Jerusalem is
clearly distinguished from fortified cities in several passages in the
OT/HB.8 Therefore, it seems clear that Jerusalem is not intended to be
counted among these cities here.9
Immediately following this initial description of Sennacheribs suc-
cess against the fortified cities, Hezekiah is described as capitulating.
Therefore, according to this text, Hezekiahs submission occurred
before any military action took place against Jerusalem itself (contrary
to what is implied in the Assyrian accounts). While Sennacherib was at
Lachish, Hezekiah sent ( )to the king of Assyria . . . (v. 14). This
verb has no explicit direct object but probably implies the ellipsis of
the object, messengers.
Hezekiahs confession by the hand of the messenger (v. 14) is that
he has sinned ().10 The expression is common in con-
fessions of wrongdoing (e.g., 1 Sam 15:24; 2 Sam 12:12; 24:17).11 In
these examples, the speaker is clearly in the wrong and his confession
is trustworthy; however, Hezekiahs admission appears to be ironic
considering the narrators evaluation of him that he did what was right
in the eyes of Yahweh (v. 3). Apparently, what was right in Gods eyes

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

was sin in eyes of the king of Assyria.12 Moreover, Hezekiah says he


will bear ( )whatever Sennacherib demands. This may be another
ironic statement as the word has connotations of forgive when
connected with sin ( ;e.g., 1 Sam 15:25, Ps 32:5, Ex 10:17).13 Here
Hezekiah is portrayed as not only the sinner but also the forgiver, if
Sennacherib would just withdraw, that is, .14

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

in various ways.16 However, what is seldom noted is what the biblical


text says Hezekiah actually paid to Sennacherib. Only silver is explic-
itly mentioned. In v. 15 we are told that Hezekiah gave Sennacherib
all the silver found in the house of Yahweh and in the treasuries of
the house of the king (v. 15). But what about the gold? While most
English translations explicitly mention gold, the word ( )is not in
the Hebrew. This omission is significant when it is realized that gold
is explicitly mentioned in every other account of the despoiling of the
temple to pay a foreign monarch or in accounts of invading foreign
kings plundering the temple in the DH.17
Many have interpreted the mention of the doors of the temple of
Yahweh, and the doorposts that King Hezekiah of Judah had over-
laid (v. 16) as implying the gold which is otherwise absent. In the
narrative concerning the construction of the temple, Solomon is said
to have carved on the two olive-wood doors ( )cherubs, and
palm-trees, and openings of flowers (1 Kgs 6:32). These carvings were
then overlaid with gold. It does not appear that the doors are being
described as overlaid with gold, but only the carvings on the doors.18
However, the possibility of the doors themselves being overlaid with
gold cannot be ruled out.

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

However, as the narrative of the book of Kings progresses, various


foreign monarchs and Judahite rulers plunder the temple of its gold.19
The first of these pillaging monarchs is Shishak, who is said to have
taken the treasures of the house of Yahweh and the treasures of the
kings house before it explicitly says that he took everything (
;1 Kgs 14:26). The text notes that this included the gold shields
that Solomon had made () . Rehoboam responds by replac-
ing the shields with shields of bronze (1 Kgs 14:27). Here we see an
example of the Judean king attempting to replace the treasures lost to
foreign marauders.
The temple is next plundered when Baasha threatens Judah and King
Asa draws on the temple cache to secure help from the Arameans (1 Kgs
15:1622). What is interesting in this narrative is how these temple trea-
sures are described. It says that Asa took all the silver and the gold that
were left in the treasures of the house of Yahweh (1 Kgs 15:18). What
is important to note for our purposes here is how these are described
as what was left (). The text appears to be aware of the previous
plundering of Shishak recorded in the previous chapter.20 This narrative
describes the further depletion of the temples treasures.
The next mention of temple looting is found in the reign of Jehoash.
Preceding this narrative there is a description of Jehoashs attempt
to repair the temple. Yet despite his efforts, little is accomplished. In
fact, it explicitly says that but for the house of Yahweh no . . . vessels
of gold, or of silver, were made from the money that was brought into
the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 12:14; [Eng. 12:13]). Then immediately
following this pericope on temple repair, Jehoashs country is invaded

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

by the Aramean king, Hazael. In response, Jehoash plunders all the


gold found in the temple (2 Kgs 12:19 [Eng 12:18]). Interestingly, here
the gold is referred to as that which was found ().21 This would
seem to imply that the gold had to be discovered, and not that it was
simply in the temple where it was supposed to be.22 In a subsequent
pericope, Jehoash, king of Israel successfully attacks Jerusalem and
plunders the temple. He is said to have taken all the gold and silver
found in the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 14:14). This points further to the
depletion of the temples precious metals.
The next instance of sanctuary stripping is found in the reign of Ahaz,
where he took the silver and gold found in the temple and sent it to
the king of Assyria to procure aid during the so-called Syro-Ephraimite
Crisis (2 Kgs 16:8). Once again the gold is referred to as that which
was found (). This probably indicates that the temples treasure-
troves have not been replenished.
This brings us to the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative where Hezekiah
agrees to pay tribute demanded by Sennacherib. Here we are told he
cut off ( )the doors of the temple of Yahweh and the mountings/
doorposts ( )that Hezekiah had overlaid ().23 Some have
suggested reading for since Solomon is the only one said

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

to have overlaid ( )temple doors.24 However, there is no textual


support for this emendation. The text explicitly describes Hezekiah as a
reformer, making it perfectly acceptable that he was the benefactor of the
temple as noted here. Moreover, it is not the doors that are necessarily
overlaid by Hezekiah, but the doorposts or mountings ().25
Reading the text literally, it may be describing Hezekiahs sending
of the doors themselves to Sennacherib.26 For our purposes we must
discern whether these doors can represent the required tribute of gold.
The text does not explicitly mention gold in this instance. Hezekiah
is said to have overlaid these doors, presumably due to Ahazs (or
another of his forebears) plundering of the temple (2 Kgs 16:8), but
while it is indeed possible that Hezekiah overlaid them with gold, it is
not necessarily so. When the gold shields of Solomon were taken from
the temple, they were replaced with shields of bronze (1 Kgs 14:27).27
We have no textual suggestion as to what was overlaid on these doors
by Hezekiah and it is not impossible that they too were overlaid with
bronze as in the case of the shields (which could have been analogous
to the practice in Assyria, where we find bronze panelling on doors).28
In the OT/HB the root invariably is used along with an explicit

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

object informing the reader with what X was overlaid.29 In the DH


the verb refers to overlaying with gold in the temple (e.g., 1 Kgs
6:2022) or in Solomons palace (1 Kgs 10:18). Second Kings 18:16 is
the only time where the material in question is not listed. The lack of
mention of the gold may be a narrative technique to distance Hezekiah
from giving away the gold of the temple. No gold is mentioned, so,
narratively, Hezekiah did not fully meet Sennacheribs demands.
In fact, the omission of gold from the tribute may function to lionize
Hezekiah and distinguish him from his father and other wicked kings
who readily give away the gold of the temple. It has always been curi-
ous that Hezekiah was viewed so positively by the narrator, despite his
temple plundering to pay off Assyria.30 In fact, it is said there was no
one like him among all the kings of Judah after him, or among those
who were before him (2 Kgs 18:5). One explanation for this unashamed
lionizing in spite of the said temple plundering may be due to the omis-
sion of gold in the narrative presentation of Hezekiahs tribute.
In the temple descriptions of 1 Kings, it is clear that objects of gold
were deemed temple worthy, while silver objects were not.31 This can
be seen in the description of the construction of the temple, which does
not include anything made of silver. However, silver is prominent in
1 Kgs 10:1423 in the description of the kings personal wealth. This
is important when it is realized how the description in 1 Kings 10 is
contrary to the law of the king in Deut 17:17 which forbids the king

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

rightly pointed out that it is too vague to be an indication of an archival


source.37 This temporal marker is more typical of historiographic texts
from the ancient Near East.38 In historiographic writings, the use of this
temporal marker often indicates that here begins a new subject that is
related to the preceding sequence, so that in many cases they indicate
the beginning of a new story.39
As noted in our syntactical analysis above, this temporal marker and
the following perfect verb ( )initiate a new paragraph.40 In this case,
a new complication is introduced into the narrative as Hezekiah failed
to fulfil the tribute demands made by the Assyrians. This propels the
narrative from what could have been a quick resolution to the story (as
other narrations of the invasions of foreign kings typically end quite
promptly after the payment of tribute) into a larger story.41 Therefore,
narratively speaking, this marker is crucial in explaining the visit of
the Assyrian emissaries, suggesting that Hezekiah gave his silver but
failed to provide the required talents of gold.42 This temporal marker
suggests there were two phases of the payment of tribute, the second
of which consisted of Hezekiah dismantling the doors of the temple
which may or may not have been overlaid with goldand giving
them to Sennacherib. This sets the stage for the visit of the Assyrian
emissaries who have been sent to demand total surrender because
the required gold tribute was not sufficiently covered by the doors of
the temple. This marker distances the initial payment of silver from the
giving of the doors of the temple and affects the temporal contiguity
between Sennacheribs attack on the fortified cities of Judah and the
sending of emissaries to Jerusalem, explaining why Sennacherib sends

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

his emissaries to Jerusalem despite the tribute paid.43 In this narrative


development, the narrator may be emphasizing that the typical solu-
tion of human kingsthe paying of tributemust be abandoned for
the divine solution of trust in Yahweh which then drives the rest of
the narrative (as the key word highlights).
In sum, in the narrative presentation of 2 Kings 18, Hezekiah does
not furnish Sennacherib with the required gold tribute. As suggested,
this may function to lionize Hezekiah as a faithful king who does not
give away the true treasures of the temple (as only gold treasures are
referred to in the description of the building of the temple) but only
the silver (which may have come from the kings house). Moreover,
this omission of gold from the tribute also functions to explain why the
Assyrian emissaries are sent to Jerusalem, despite tribute paid.44 This
causal link has been overlooked in other studies, but is important in
the context of the narrative.

C. The Visit of the Assyrian Emissaries


The narrative continues with the following statement.
(2 Kgs 18:17a)
...
A standard translation is The king of Assyria sent . . . the Rabshakeh
with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah. However, there is
some ambiguity regarding the exact meaning of this verse, specifically
regarding the meaning of , which has several lexical possibilities that
may fit the context. HALOT acknowledges that has a fairly broad
semantic range, listing three main denotations: 1. faculty, power;
2. wealth, property; and 3. army.45 The first of these definitions

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.

1. The Visit of the Queen of Sheba



and she came to Jerusalem with a very great entourage, camels carrying
spices and very much gold and precious stone (1 Kgs 10:2)
In 1 Kgs 10:2 and the parallel in 1 Chr 9:2 Solomon entertains the
Queen of Sheba who comes to Jerusalem with . It is obviously
not a great army that is referred to here as the context makes clear
the definition of this camels, spices, gold, precious stones etc.
(1 Kgs 10:2). The NRSVs translation of great retinue seems fitting
here.47 So the definition of here fits into category 2 of HALOTs
definitions. If the meaning of in 2 Kgs 18:17 approximates that
of 1 Kgs 10:2 then it would appear to be an entourage that accompanied
the Assyrian officials. However, given the present hostilities between the
Assyrians and the Judeans, this translation appears inadequate.

2. The Aramean Attempt to Seize Elisha


Second Kings 6 describes an attempt by the Arameans to stifle Israelite
reconnaissance. The man of God is described as miraculously warning

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

as referring to a military escort rather than to a large army.49


In other words, if this understanding of be granted, there is
no besieging army at Jerusalems walls in this narrative.50
A close reading of the next phrase supports this translation.

And they went up and came to Jerusalem and they stood (2 Kgs 18:17b)

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.

Indirect Prepositional Indirect Direct Subject Verb


Object Phrase Object object
with
Jerusalem a heavy force/ to Hezekiah King of Sent
great wealth Assyria
Tartan,
Rab-saris
And RabShakeh

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

This translation is fairly standard.51 However, if here carries the


sense of enter, as it frequently does, we could read and they went
up and they entered Jerusalem. This reading is confirmed by the next,
nearly identical phrase, And they went up and they entered, and they
stood. Some delete the first two verbs of the latter phrase as dittogra-
phy.52 However, if we retain them, this shows the emissaries journey,
into Jerusalem, up into the heart of the city, where they stand by the
conduit of the pool.53
This appears to be located inside the city.54

D. The Assyrian Threats


Once they are inside the city, the Assyrian emissaries, the Tartan, the
Rabsaris and the Rabshakeh called for the king (v. 18). Hezekiah,
realizing that these Assyrians had come for more than the tribute,
refuses to give them an audience, clearly an act of defiance. Instead,
this rebel king sends his three officials to match Assyrias: Eliakim,
Shebna and Joah.

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

Rabshakehs opening address to the Judean monarch reveals his


attitude towards his opponent. Say to Hezekiah, Thus says the great
king, the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:19). While extreme deference is
paid to Sennacherib who is designated king twice in this opening
sentence, Hezekiah is referred to without his official title.55 As Bostock
has asserted, The use of such a title for the Assyrian king in proxim-
ity to the name of Judahs king without any title suggests the notion
of the superiority of Sennacherib over Hezekiah.56 Recognition of the
rhetorical function of the lack of official designation for Hezekiah in
this instance militates against arguments for discrete sources based on
differences in designations of Hezekiah in this narrative.57
The opening argument of the Rabshakehs speech is telling: Do you
think that mere words are strategy and power for war? (2 Kgs 18:20

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.

E. Hezekiah and Isaiah Respond


The next paragraph begins in 2 Kgs 19:1 and describes Hezekiah hear-
ing the threats of the Assyrians and his appeal to Yahwehs prophet,
Isaiah (v. 2). Hezekiahs only hope here is that Yahweh may have heard
the Rabshakehs words and taken offence at them (2 Kgs 19:4). Isaiah
assures Hezekiah that Yahweh indeed had heard these blasphemies and

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).

F. The Second Assyrian Delegation


In the beginning of the next verse (2 Kgs 19:9), the Hebrew is ambigu-
ous as to the subject of the verb: And he heard. . . .64 While the closest
antecedent is the Rabshakeh, since the subject sends messengers again
in 2 Kgs 19:9, he must be Sennacherib.65 The Assyrian king hears of

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

the approaching military threat of Tirhakah of Cush (v. 9).66 Contrary


to the Rabshakehs derision of Egyptian aid, the narrative here pictures
the latter as instrumental in distracting the Assyrians from their focus
on Jerusalem. In light of the Egyptian threat, Sennacherib again sends
messengers to Jerusalem, and dictates the message they will convey. This
message was then sent in the form of letters (2 Kgs 19:14), probably
indicating that the three important Assyrian officials did not make a
second trip to the Judean capital.67 Due to the impending danger of the
Cushite approach, no military escort is sent this time around (which
may explain why anonymous messengers are sent instead of the triad
of Assyrian officials).
While the second threat is indeed similar to the earlier threats of
the Rabshakeh, narratively, this second threat heightens the tension.68
The rumour of an approaching Cushite force that was heard did not
successfully cause an Assyrian retreat, but instead instigated further
threats.69 What is more, the second message is more blasphemous
than the first as it suggests that not Hezekiah but their very God will
deceive them (2 Kgs 19:10).70

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

G. Another Prophetic Response


Hezekiah proceeds to take the letters from the Assyrian messengers
and spread them out ( )before Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:14).71 The king
pleads that Yahweh hear how the Assyrians have mocked the living
God. Once again, Hezekiah is answered through the prophet Isaiah
who sends to Hezekiah with lengthy oracles against Sennacherib con-
cluding with a word of assurance. The climax of these prophecies is
found in 2 Kgs 19:3234:
Therefore, thus says Yahweh to the King of Assyria: he shall not come
into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast
up a siege ramp against it. By the way that he came, by the same he shall
return; he shall not come into this city, says Yahweh. For I will defend this
city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.
Clearly the prophet denies that any siege will occur.72 Would the
author allow such a prophecy to stand beside a description of a siege
of Jerusalem, thereby invalidating this prophetic word? This tension
has been felt by commentators who have consistently sided with the
Assyrian description of the events. As Hobbs notes, The oracle in
vv. 3234, if viewed from a strict historicist perspective, not only con-
tradicts Sennacheribs record but the biblical one as well. . . . In the light
of the historical evidence that the siege had taken and indeed was tak-
ing place, to state that it is not happening would be quite ludicrous.73
The historical evidence referred to here, no doubt, is the Assyrian
annals. However, a close reading of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative
reveals that it does not refer to a siege at any time.

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

II. Siege Language

The semantic range usually employed for situations of siege in biblical


Hebrew includes various terms. is the most common word to denote
a siege.74 The verb means to besiege and so is frequently employed
in siege contexts.75 The verb ( to encamp) is also commonly used
in this regard, usually in conjunction with .76 Less frequently, is
used in combination with in references to besieging.77 The noun
(siege towers) is often employed in such contexts.78 Commonly,
(siege mounds or ramps) are mentioned.79 It is noteworthy that none
of these terms are found in the narrative except in Isaiahs denial that
a siege will occur.80 When the Assyrian emissaries come to Jerusalem
it is only said that they ( went up) they ( entered or came)
and they ( stood). The word ( to go up) is sometimes used in
military situations, in combination with other more explicit battle verbs
(e.g., Isa 7:1; Isa 21:2). Or when is in combination with
( e.g., 1 Kgs 20:22; 2 Kgs 18:13) it can mean to fight against.81 But
on its own it never indicates such a military threat. The combination of

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.

III. The Denouement

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

was insufficient evidence for most critics.87 This number is especially


large considering that it is clearly not the entire camp of Assyrians that
perished as some remained to wake up in the morning and see all the
corpses.88 However, in the world of the narrative such large numbers
are not problematic.89
In determining what the text claims to have occurred, it is important
to note the geographical location of the Assyrian camp. Nowhere in
the narrative did we have the Assyrian army move to camp outside of
Jerusalem. At the beginning of the narrative (2 Kgs 18:14) Sennacherib
is at Lachish and it is there that Hezekiah negotiates with him. Then
in 2 Kgs 19:8 we find that Sennacherib has moved camp from Lachish
to Libnah, which is where the story situates the Assyrian camp when
the angel of Yahweh strikes. Assertions that 2 Kgs 19:35 describes
the Assyrian army suffering a catastrophic defeat before the walls of
Jerusalem do not seem accurate.90 Earlier studies are actually to be
preferred in this regard as they have been more careful to note the
location of the army according to this narrative.91 It would appear that

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

The existence of Assyrian sources has undoubtedly aided in the inter-


pretation of many narratives in the book of Kings. Through combining
the witness of the biblical authors and that of the Assyrian annalist,
reconstructing history is far more precise than if only the biblical text
were extant. However, a subtle danger exists if the narratives of Kings
are read through the categories formed by the Assyrian annals. Often
scholarship has adopted the perspective of the latter as the normative
meaning of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. However, as we have
seen, if one reads 2 Kings 1819 outside the framework of the Assyrian
annals, a different result arises.
Contrary to the implications of the Assyrian annals, the Kings narra-
tive presents Hezekiah paying tribute to Sennacherib while at Lachish

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

and not subsequent to Assyrian military action against Jerusalem.93 A


close reading suggests that the reason for the Assyrian expedition to
Jerusalem, despite Hezekiahs prior capitulation, is Hezekiahs failure
to pay the full tribute. Furthermore, the Assyrian expedition does not
appear to have been a large military force that besieges the capital, as
there is no reason to believe it was a force larger than was necessary to
protect the emissaries.94 Rather than presenting a siege of Jerusalem, the
Kings narrative describes military action against the fortified cities of
Judah, but only rhetorical action directly against the capital. This fulfils
the prophetic word denying the possibility of a siege. Interestingly, the
initial prophetic word is fulfilled in stages as without delay a rumour
is heard, but the return of the king of Assyria is delayed until later in
the narrative. However, the advance of the Egyptian army plays a role
in the first stage of the fulfilment of the prophecy. The Cushite force is
depicted as serving to distract Sennacherib from his focus on the Judean
capital (2 Kgs 19:8). Finally, contrary to most assumptions, when the
narrative describes the devastation of the Assyrian camp, it does not
locate this camp outside of Jerusalem. Following this nocturnal angelic
attack the second stage of the prophecy is fulfilled as Sennacherib
returns and is killed in his own land.
It is vital to be cognizant that the elucidation of the claims of this
text does not demand that they agree with the claims of other texts
or that they agree with any other evidences available. However, if the
text appears to make a certain claim, it should not be restricted by our
historical fixations.95 We must first consider the literary nature of the
text, rather than look for historical probability.96 However, now that
the text has been heard on its own, assessing the historicity of this text
is a worthy and important ambition. It is to such an assessment that
we now turn.

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

USING 2 KINGS 1819 IN HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION

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

Before proceeding to assess this narrative for its historicity, usual


method demands that the sources in the text first be isolated. As
Grabbe writes, The historical value of the book is no greater than the
sources used for its information. If the writer used good sources, the
data in them may still be acceptable despite the ideological purpose for
which they have been used by the writer, but worthless sources remain
worthless, however they have been used.2 While Grabbes statements
seem logical initially, they assume the possibility of recovering what
sources were actually used in the construction of a narrative. Since our
study has undermined the matrix of sources as traditionally perceived,

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

determining whether good sources were used is difficult. Does this


proscribe the use of the narrative in any historical reconstruction? How
can we assess the historicity of this narrative if we cannot definitively
determine the sources employed? What if the sources are ultimately
unidentifiable?3 This situation requires a different method than tradi-
tional historical-critical work on the narratives of the OT/HB.
At the outset it is important to note that recognition of a portion of
the text as the work of Dtr does not necessarily call into question its
historical veracity. As is well known, in the study of the DH, one of the
key criteria for identifying the work of Dtr as over against that of the
original source is the use of distinctive deuteronomnistic phraseology.4
Second Kings 18:18, the regnal rsum of Hezekiah, is riddled with
distinctive Dtr phraseology.5 Yet despite the obvious identification of
this section as the work of Dtr, the historical veracity of Hezekiahs
reform (recounted in this section) has been judged by most to be
historical.6 Similarly, the accounts (2 Kings 17 and 2 Kgs 18:912)

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

of Samarias destruction by the Assyrians relay authentic historical


information, despite clearly being Dtr compositions (both riddled with
Dtr phraseology).7 As well, the putative Account A has been viewed
as formulaically Deuteronomistic, yet has been almost universally seen
as relaying excellent historical information.8 Therefore, it would seem
that an acknowledgment of the work of Dtr on a text does not a priori
militate against its historical verisimilitude.9 So by what criteria is the
biblical text to be employed or ignored in a historical reconstruction?
Historical methodology in regards to the use of the biblical text is
highly debated at present.10 However, here is not the place to enter

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

deeply into the discussion.11 Suffice it to say that there appears to be


no consensus regarding whether texts that cannot be verified by extra-
biblical texts or material evidence should be employed in historical
reconstruction.12 Assuming that the use of the biblical text in historical
reconstruction is legitimate in at least some instances, without sure
source delineations, how can we evaluate it for such use?13 In the case

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

of Sennacheribs invasion into Judah there is an unusual amount of


extra-biblical material available. How the biblical account coheres with
such material or is somehow verified is of great importance in such
an evaluation.14
Historical studies for the most part follow a standard process and
employ standard methods.15 After choosing the topic to investigate,
historians familiarize themselves with the relevant material.16 This
stage of familiarization is the juncture at which the assessment of
individual sources occurs. The later stages of conceptual invention
and inductive verification cannot occur until such familiarization
is completed.17 In order to attain familiarization, the historian must
first make judgments regarding the nature of a text. Such an assessment
must begin by determining whether a text is internally coherent.18 It

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

is essential that this analysis be done prior to comparison with other


evidences. As Miller suggests, in order to avoid circularity a historian
must analyze each type of evidence separately . . . and determine what
can be learned from this particular kind of evidence alone, before
interweaving it with other kinds of evidence.19 This study has already
demonstrated the internal coherence of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib
narrative. However, we cannot stop here, as obviously coherence does
not demand historicity.20 The next step in assessing a texts value for
historical reconstruction is to understand the text in its literal sense.21
This study has already offered a fresh reading of the text that attempted
to understand it unprejudiced from the reading of other texts or tra-
ditional source-critical delineations. What remains is to determine if
the text is corroborated or contradicted by other witnesses.22 To test
the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative in this regard, we must compare
it with the testimony of other ancient texts. 23 If the witnesses are
compatible this could suggest the truth of the testimony, at least in a
preliminary sense.24
The study so far has revealed that the Hezekiah narratives are intrin-
sically theological works.25 Even the very structure of these narratives

to spot any internal inconsistencies . . . Cf. V. Philips Long, introducton to Windows


into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel (ed.
V. Philips Long, et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 5. Elsewhere Long (The
Art of Biblical History [FCI 5; Leicester: Apollos, 19], 186) writes, If a biblical narrative
is incoherent or self-contradictory, if it doesnt make sense as a story, then it is hardly
likely to be true as history. . . .
19
J. Maxwell Miller, Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without Relying on
the Hebrew Bible? in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israels Past (ed. Diana
Edelman; JSOTSup 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 9394.
20
As works of fiction are usually coherent.
21
Robert Jones Shafer (A Guide to Historical Method [Chicago: Dorsey, 1980],
126128) calls this the first step in internal criticism whereby the historian assesses
the historical value of a documentary source, taking into account the context, culture
and time period of its origins.
22
As Shafer (ibid., 138) writes, A major part of historical method relates to efforts
to find corroborative evidence . . . .
23
In Longs (Introduction, 5) words, we must compare it with the testimony of
all other credible texts/witnesses.
24
As Long (ibid., 6) puts it its truth claims have truth value. The final step in
Longs proposed method involves weighing the material evidence and its relevance to
the truth claims of the text in question.
25
The examples could be multiplied, but a few here will suffice. Our analysis has
revealed thematic leitwrter highlighting theological ideas such as trust in Yahweh, etc.
As well, the narrative is concerned with the validity of the prophetic word as Isaiahs
using kings in historical reconstruction 173

points to the primacy of their ideological message.26 To be sure, the


history contained in these narratives is only of secondary importance to
the theological aims. At no point in the narrative do we find a detached
description of an event or a mere chronicle of what occurred.27 An exact
record of what happened was subordinated to an explanation of the
theological significance of the event.28 Since the ideology is primary in
the story, we must determine to what extent the description of events
has been distorted or skewed to the detriment of historical veracity.29
Obviously, the author of these narratives was not a historian in the
modern sense. Rather than prioritizing critical judgment of his sources,
ideological goals guided his method. Therefore, the theological bias of
these narratives must be taken into account in order to employ them
in historical reconstruction. This makes an examination of the ideologi-
cal Tendenz of the narrative a paramount task. As Edelman has stated,
Judgments as to the neutrality and intentionally biased or deceptive
nature of records and remains must be made before any text or arti-
fact can be considered to be acceptable evidence for the events under
investigation.30 Since obviously no narrative (Assyrian or Judean) is
neutral, an assessment of its ideology and biases is necessary to judge
its usefulness in historical reconstruction. Since the traditional source
delineations have not stood up to scrutiny, the present study will assess

prophecies are demonstrated as fulfilled. The Rabshakeh is vilified as a blasphemer,


which Yahweh takes seriously and for that reason repulses the Assyrian army.
26
E.g., the narrative of the visit of Babylonian envoys is placed out of chronologi-
cal order for literary and ideological reasons (e.g., Hezekiahs role in the salvation of
Jerusalem is recounted narratively prior to his [chronologically prior] selfish remarks
following Isaiahs prophecy of exile, possibly in order to present Hezekiah as worthy
of such salvation).
27
As we have seen, even in the putative Account A, which many have suggested
is a verbatim extract from a Judean annal, theology is paramount as Hezekiah uses
theologically loaded words in his request for terms.
28
As John J. Collins (The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005], 49) writes, To be sure, the biblical account
has a theological agenda and cannot be accepted at face value, but the Assyrian account
is no less ideological and propagandistic.
29
In his discussion of historical method, Long (Introduction, 6) rightly cautions
that the core convictions of the historian are factors in such assessment. However,
Long fails to discuss the role of critiquing the ideology of the text itself and how
such a critique would function in the texts assessment. This lacuna is curious as it is
a step widely employed in historical studies. E.g., Briant, Cyrus to Alexander, 16, 23.
Cf. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 128. Texts are usually seen as suspect if their ideological
aim fits that of the writer.
30
Edelman, Doing History, 16.
174 chapter four

the ideology of the various events purported to have occurred accord-


ing to 2 Kings 1819 rather than assess the ideology of the various
sources. By examining the focus of the historical interest of the author
of 2 Kings 1819 we will be in a somewhat better position to judge its
veracity.31
This study will now assess 2 Kings 1819 and their appropriateness
for use in historical reconstruction. It will compare the Hezekiah-
Sennacherib narrative to other texts from the ancient Near East that
were roughly contemporary with the events. This study will note
incidental confirmation by other texts and note near parallels that
strengthen plausibility. This method will then be supplemented with
a critique of the ideology of the text itself. Along with these methods
of assessment, the study will also consider counterfactuals to aid in
determining the plausibility/probability of conclusions reached.

II. A Comparative Experiment:


Assyrian Sources and Kings

In order to determine in a preliminary way the historical character of


the 2 Kings account of Sennacheribs invasion, a brief outline of the
2 Kings account and the material found in Assyrian sources is given
here. (See the Appendix at the end of this chapter). This will be helpful
for illustrative purposes and aid in answering our questions of meth-
odology in historical reconstruction without identifiable sources.
Obviously, the picture of Hezekiahs reign found in 2 Kings finds a
great deal of confirmation from Mesopotamian sources.32 The Assyr-
ian sources attest to Hezekiahs rebellion against Assyria mentioned in
2 Kgs 18:7. Hezekiahs aggression against Philistia, mentioned in 2 Kgs
18:8, is also confirmed in Assyrian sources. Of course, both biblical and

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

Assyrian sources are unanimous that Sennacherib invaded Hezekiahs


Judah with widespread military success. The presence of an Egyptian/
Ethiopian force in Palestine is attested in both Kings and Sennacheribs
annals. These same sources agree that Hezekiah paid tribute of precious
metals, though the numbers do not exactly correspond.
Nevertheless, the account in Kings has some important details that
have no parallel in Assyrian sources: the mission of the Assyrian emis-
saries, the defeat of the Assyrian army, and the success of the Egyptian
expedition.33 However, the picture in 2 Kings 1819 gets some surpris-
ing confirmation from incidental points in Mesopotamian sources. For
example, 2 Kgs 18:8 records that Hezekiah succeeded in taking Gaza
from the Philistines.34 While there are references to Hezekiahs attack on
the Philistines, the capture of Gaza by Assyrian enemies is not recorded
in Assyrian sources.35 Sennacheribs annals record that all the kings of
Amurru (i.e., the West) willingly gave him tribute but Gaza is not
mentioned among them.36 Yet the king of Gaza is later mentioned as
the recipient of despoiled Judean cities after Sennacheribs conquest of
Hezekiahs Judah.37 It appears that the conquest of Gaza by Hezekiah
fits well with the material recorded in the Assyrian annals.38

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

Another example of unparalleled material in 2 Kings 1819 which


finds confirmation in Assyrian sources is the importance of Lachish
to Sennacheribs Judean campaign. This importance is implied by the
threefold mention of this Judean city as Sennacheribs location in the
2 Kings account (2 Kgs 18:14, 17; 19:8).39 Curiously, Lachish is not
mentioned in Sennacheribs annals, the Azekah, Bull or Slab inscrip-
tions.40 However, a relief found in Nineveh depicting the assault and
capture of Lachish attests to the picture presented by 2 Kings 1819
regarding the significance of this city.41 Again we have confirmation
from a Mesopotamian source.
The correspondences between these literary sources give the critic
a considerable degree of confidence in the biblical account of 2 Kings
1819 that refers to Sennacheribs invasion of Judah.42 It may suggest

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

that some other material from 2 Kings 1819, though unparalleled in


Assyrian sources, may also contain reliable information about Sen-
nacheribs invasion of the Levant in 701. This study will now proceed
to examine the material found in 2 Kings 1819 which is unparalleled
in Assyrian sources.

A. The Egyptian/Ethiopian Expedition


One of the major differences regarding the claims of the Assyrian annals
and the text in 2 Kings, concerns the success of the Egyptian force that
clashes with Sennacherib.43 In the 2 Kings account, the Egyptian force
appears to be instrumental in the Assyrian withdrawal from Jerusalem
and Sennacheribs return home. In Sennacheribs annals the Egyptian
expedition is portrayed as a dismal failure.44 Here we have a true con-
tradiction of sources.
A critique of the ideology of the two sources may be helpful here.
An unqualified success by Sennacherib surely goes along with Assyrian
royal ideology.45 This could make this reference to this Assyrian victory
suspect, if reliable evidence to the contrary existed. This is due to the
great measure with which such an event accords with Assyrian ideol-
ogy and expectations. However, the situation is very different when we
examine the ideological bent of 2 Kings. In fact, the inclusion of the
success of Egyptian aid is counter-ideological to the biblical narrative.
The ideology that only Yahweh can be relied upon is explicitly stated in
biblical literature and the results of reliance on nations such as Egypt

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

clearly demonstrated many times.46 Therefore, the assertion that an


Egyptian force was involved in the salvation of Jerusalem appears to
contradict the many biblical assertions regarding the futility of reliance
on Egypt.47 If we assume the principle of counter-ideology, we would
conclude that the success of the Egyptian force in 701 is likely a piece
of genuine historical information. If the Egyptian expedition was in
fact a complete failure, we could hardly suppose that the biblical writer
would create such a positive role for them in his narrative.48
Of course the extent of success achieved by the Egyptians should be
viewed in light of a Judean perspective. This success need not imply
a complete victory by the Egyptians. In fact, all that may have been
needed by Judah was a distraction to delay the military action against
their land. Ephal has pointed out that the Assyrian empire was some-
what restricted in their campaigns by time and space.49 The imperial
army was limited due to its obligations and missions on the borders
of the empire.50 In fact, Ephal asserts: If the rebels were able to hold
out longer than the time which the imperial army could allocate for
action against them, there was a reasonable chance that the emperor
would either not send his army against them or that he would have
to stop fighting against them because the action extended beyond its
allocated time.51 If the incursion of the Egyptian army was not in the
purview of the Assyrian battle plan, it may have been enough to cause
the Assyrians to move on and abandon any planned action against
Jerusalem.52 The time factor greatly affected the operational methods
of the imperial army, so that they could only allocate so much time to

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

particular regions. As well, the distance of Palestine from the centre of


the Assyrian empire affected their ability to react. When an unexpected
army approached, the Assyrians were forced to cease other operations
against cities and build up a concentration of the army as soon as
possible.53 Ephal 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 The biblical acknowledg-
ment of the positive role played by the Egyptian force is remarkable
given the many pronouncements regarding the impotence of Egyptian
aid, and probably reflects genuine historical memory. This causal link
should be reckoned with in any historical reconstruction of Sennach-
eribs invasion.55

B. The Mission of Assyrian Emissaries


The account in 2 Kings emphasizes the mission of Assyrian emissaries
who were dispatched to Jerusalem to demand surrender. However,
there is no parallel to this event in Assyrian annals concerned with
Sennacheribs campaign into the Levant. Therefore, in order to assess
the account of such a mission in 2 Kings, the critic must ask whether
similar tactics were employed in the ancient Near East. An example of
similar strategies is found in the Nimrud letters where the Assyrians
send emissaries to the city of Babylon, which was in rebellion against
their suzerain. The parallels between the 2 Kings account and the
Nimrud letters have been dealt with at length in earlier studies.56 For
our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that the historicity of such a

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

Jerusalem.62 It would appear that there is a historical kernel behind the


visit of the Rabshakeh and his threatening speech.63 The speech may be
based on a genuine memory of the threats of the Assyrian emissaries;
however, the speech in its present form appears to be a piece of Judean
propaganda.64 Although the content of the speech of the Rabshakeh is
very questionable, even a fictional account can still represent a known
historical happening.

C. The Defeat of the Assyrian Army


The most controversial and obvious disagreement between the 2 Kings
account and Sennacheribs annals is in the outcome of the campaign
against Judah. Second Kings purports that losses suffered by the Assyr-
ian army resulted in Sennacheribs return to Nineveh. This appears to
be in direct contradiction with the Assyrian annals, which describe
the campaign as an unmitigated victory. How can the historian decide
between the two portrayals?65
If one first applies the principle of counter-ideology one finds both
accounts to be suspect. The ideology of Dtr holds that pious actions
result in divine assistance and blessing. Hezekiah was a pious king
whose actions result in the salvation of his capital city. The ideology of
the Assyrian annals is such that the Great King never suffers a military
loss. His campaigns are invariably recorded as unequivocal successes.66

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

Assyrian king to make an example of Hezekiah and replace him with a


king more disposed to Assyrian rule. This is of course what happened
under many other circumstances where a rebel king was put down.73
If an independent parallel account existed which corroborated one
of these accounts, it would strengthen our confidence in one account
over the other. As is well known Herodotus gives an account of an
Egyptian victory over Sennacherib.74 Through a detailed literary analysis,
Grabbe has demonstrated the independence of the Herodotus text.75
Without an attempt to correlate this text with the biblical one in details
(e.g., that both refer to a plague), it appears we have another ancient
text that records the defeat of the Assyrian army under Sennacherib.76

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

In sum, the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative appears to communicate


a good deal of reliable historical information. Much of it is verified
in the Assyrian annals. However, some elements are not found in the
latter. Nevertheless, under close scrutiny it appears that much of this
unparalleled material is plausible. The success of the Egyptian expedition
against Sennacheribs army appears plausible and may be an important
causal link in a historical reconstruction of Sennacheribs invasion. The
mission of the Assyrian emissaries also appears to be probable, though
the text of the speech recorded in 2 Kings may be a free composition
of the author. Finally, the losses suffered by an Assyrian army, referred
to in 2 Kgs 19:35, may have a historical kernel beneath the husk of a
nocturnal angelic assault. This defeat of the Assyrian army may be
reflected in Herodotus and helps explain why Jerusalem was not cap-
tured and Hezekiah was allowed to remain on the throne, despite being
his prominent role in the rebellion. Despite our inability to dissect this
narrative confidently into putative sources, the text has been found to
contain reliable historical information.

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

2 Kgs 18:13: Line 4: . . . the Sennacherib Thompson


Sennacherib district [of Hezek]iah marches against Prism; Bulls 1,
invades of Judah90 Hatti (of which 2 and 3; and
Hezekiahs Judah is a part)91 Nebi Yunus
Judah Slab: I laid
waste a wide
area of Judah92
2 Kgs 18:13: Line 5: the city Sennacherib Thompson
Sennacherib of Azekah, his besieged forty- Prism; Bulls 1,
captures all the stronghold, which is six . . . fortified 2, and 3; Nebi
fortified cities between my [ ] and walled cities and Yunus Slab:
of Judah the land of Judah93 surrounding I laid waste
smaller towns, a wide area of
which were Judah95
without
number.94
2 Kgs 18:14, (Lachish is not (Lachish is not (Lachish is not
17; 19:8: mentioned) mentioned) mentioned)
Sennacherib
was at Lachish

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

2 Kgs 18:1516: No mention of Hezekiah sends Lachish Relief


Hezekiah tribute paid96 tribute to Inscription:
pays tribute to Sennacherib Sennacherib,
Sennacherib (following his king of the
(prior to any departure to universe, king
military action Nineveh)97 of Assyria,
taken against seated upon a
Jerusalem) sedan chair, the
spoils of Lachish
passed before
him.98
2 Kgs 18:17: (Jerusalem is not Hezekiah locked (Jerusalem is not
Assyrian mentioned) up within mentioned)
force sent to Jerusalem like a
Jerusalem bird in a cage99
2 Kgs 18:1737: (no such delegation (no such (no such
Assyrian is recorded) delegation is delegation is
emissaries recorded) recorded)
attempt to
convince
Jerusalem to
surrender

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

2 Kgs 19:9: (no mention of An Egyptian/ (no mention


An Egyptian/ Egyptian/Ethiopian Ethiopian army of Egyptian/
Ethiopian army presence) in Palestine Ethiopian
in Palestine opposes Assyria100 presence)
opposes Assyria
2 Kgs 19:9: (no mention of Sennacherib (no mention
The Egyptian/ Egyptian/Ethiopian captures Egyp- of Egyptian/
Ethiopian army presence) tian charioteers Ethiopian
succeeds in and princes, presence)
distracting together with the
Sennacherib charioteers of the
from capturing Ethiopians.101
Jerusalem (It is implied that
the Egyptian
expedition is a
complete failure)
2 Kgs 19:35: Sennacheribs Sennacheribs All Sources:
Assyrian army campaign is an campaign is an Sennacheribs
suffers defeat unqualified success unqualified campaign is
at undisclosed success an unqualified
location (whilst success
in conflict with
Egypt may be
implied)
2 Kgs 19:36: (No mention of Sennacherib (No mention
Sennacherib Jerusalem or return returns to of Jerusalem
returns to to Nineveh) Nineveh without or return to
Nineveh capturing Nineveh)
without Jerusalem
capturing
Jerusalem

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

2 Kgs 18:1516: (No mention of 30 talents of gold (No mention of


30 talents of precious metals) and 800 talents precious metals)
gold and 300 of silver paid by
talents of silver Hezekiah to
demanded of Sennacherib.103
Hezekiah by
Sennacherib102
(Other tribute (No mention of Choice antimony, Lachish Relief
not mentioned) tribute paid)104 carnelian, ivory Inscription:
couches, elephant Sennacherib,
hides, ivory, king of the
ebony, boxwood, universe, king of
multicoloured Assyria, seated
and linen upon a sedan
clothing, purple chair, the spoils
wool, bronze, of Lachish passed
iron, copper before him.106
and tin tools,
chariots, siege
shields, lances,
armour, iron
swords, girdles,
bows, arrows,
countless war
implements,
daughters, palace
women, singers.105

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

Our re-reading of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative also found


a causal link explaining the Assyrian expedition to Jerusalem, despite
tribute paid. The text suggests that Hezekiah reneged on surrendering
the required payment of gold. The text also indicates that an Egyptian
force was instrumental in diverting Assyrian focus on Jerusalem. As
well, a close reading of the text suggests that the devastation of much
of the Assyrian army does not take place at Jerusalem, as most previ-
ous studies have suggested. In fact, at this point in the narrative the
Assyrians appear to be engaged with the Egyptians.
Finally, an assessment of the historical plausibility of the events
described in the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative concluded that the
admission that an Egyptian force was involved in the salvation of Jeru-
salem is likely a piece of genuine historical information, as it appears
to contradict the many biblical assertions regarding the futility of
reliance on Egypt. Significantly, the biblical text appears to locate the
devastation of the Assyrian camp not at Jerusalem, but near Egyptian
forces, making a connection with Herodotus account of the destruc-
tion of Sennacheribs army possible.3 Since the accounts come from
two disparate groups and both recall the defeat of Sennacherib due to
mysterious circumstances, this may indicate it is a genuine historical
memory.4

II. Implications

A. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative as Part of the DH


Our literary analysis has underscored the unity and coherence of the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative and has implications for our under-
standing of the composition of the DH. It is clear that Dtr was an author
who drew on extensive sources, yet in many instances he entered deeply

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

merely to leave room for extensive shaping and creative composition


in their construction.9
In the larger scope of the DH, the Hezekiah macro-narrative serves
an important narrative function.10 It provides a transition from Assyria
as the principle enemy of Judah to the imminent threat of Babylon.
After the Hezekiah macro-narrative, Assyria is never again mentioned
as a threat to Judah in the DH.11 Significantly, the Hezekiah macro-
narrative ends with a reference to the threat of Babylon, which is the
main threat to Judah in the closing chapters of the DH, culminating
in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Nebuchadnezzar.
Thus the Hezekiah narrative provides an important transition from
one menace to another.
The Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is a piece of historiography
wherein Dtrs interpretation of the past was concerned with its func-
tion in the present.12 In Dtrs exilic context an extensive treatment of
the deliverance of Jerusalem under Hezekiah was necessary.13 Living
in a community which experienced the loss of temple and land, the

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

B. The Value of Source-Critical Approaches


As noted above, in an effort to characterize Dtrs work Noth drew the
parallel of Hellenistic historians as the closest equivalent.22 That is, Dtr
is a historian/historiographer, not merely an editor. Regarding the work
of Herodotus, Immerwahr has made some interesting comments that
have relevance to our discussion. He writes,
Genetic [i.e., source-critical] theories operate upon the assumption that
traces of such earlier conceptions survive in the final version, and that we
can recognize them unequivocally for what they are. This is true, however,
only when the final stage is very incompletely finished, and a number
of remnants of earlier concepts are evident which conflict with the final
stage and have neither been eliminated nor adjusted.23
Keeping with Noths judgment of Dtr as analogous to Herodotus, this
makes source-critical analysis operationally subsequent to rhetorical
analysis.24 Given the nature of Dtrs work, historical critical work on
the DH should incorporate the insights of rhetorical-critical method-
ology. As Immerwahr writes, Knowledge of style and structure is a
prerequisite rather than a consequence of the study of origins, since all
too often the inconsistencies on which such a study is based turn out
to be stylistic peculiarities.25 Similarly, in assessing a text for histori-
cal value Long has asserted, Irrespective of whether the text/witness
is ultimately to be believed, the initial task is to listen carefully and
fairly in order to understand as accurately as possible what the text/
witness is saying.26

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

necessary assessment of these texts.30 Historical critical work can no


longer ignore the insights of rhetorical-critical analyses, but must take
them into account before assured results can be obtained.

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

. Redaction Criticism (Old Testament). Pages 64447 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible


Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman
& Todd, 1984.
Bates, Robert D. Could Taharqa Have Been Called to the Battle of Eltekeh? A Response
to William H. Shea. Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 46 (2001): 4363.
. Assyria and Rebellion in the Annals of Sennacherib: An Analysis of Sennach-
eribs Treatment of Hezekiah. Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 44 (1999):
3961.
Becking, Bob. Chronology: A Skeleton Without Flesh? Sennacheribs Campaign as a
Case-Study. Pages 4672 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.
Begg, Christopher T. Sennacheribs Second Palestinian Campaign: An Additional
Indication. Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 68586.
. 2 Kings 20:1219 as an Element of the Deuteronomistic History. Catholic Bibli-
cal Quarterly 48 (1986): 2738.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. Malleability and its Limits: Sennacheribs Campaign Against Judah as
a Case-Study. Pages 73105 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.
. On the Reading bytdwd in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 64 (1994): 2532.
. Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When? Journal of Biblical Literature
109 (1990): 7992.
Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series
9. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
. On the Bible as Literature. Proof 2 (1982): 32327.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 139. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Bloch, Marc. The Historians Craft. New York: Random House, 1953.
Boda, Mark J. Haggai, Zechariah, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.
. From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer
14,115,4. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001): 18697.
Bodner, Keith. David Observed: A King in the Eyes of His Court. Hebrew Bible Mono-
graphs 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.
Borger, Rykele. Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestcke. 2d ed. Rome: Pontifium Institutum
Biblicum, 1979.
Bostock, David. A Portrayal of Trust: The Theme of Faith in the Hezekiah Narratives.
Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: UK: Paternoster, 2006.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. Ideology, History and Theology in 2 Kings 17:723. Vetus Tes-
tamentum 39 (1989): 268282.
Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.
Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon. Oxford: Claredon, 1907.
Brueggemann, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.
Buber, Martin. Werker. Scriften zur Bibel 2. Munich: Ksel, 1964.
Buber, Martin and Franz Rosenzweig. Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung. Berlin:
Schocken, 1936.
bibliography 203

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

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English


Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Darr, Katheryn P. No Strength to Deliver: A Contextual Analysis of Hezekiahs Proverb
in Isaiah 37.3b. Pages 21956 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin
and Marvin A. Sweeney. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Davies, Gordon F. Ezra and Nehemiah. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical,
1999.
Davies, Philip R. Whose History? Whose Israel? Whose Bible? Biblical Histories,
Ancient and Modern. Pages 10422 in Can a History of Israel Be Written? Edited
by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
278; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997.
. In Search of Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supple-
ment Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
De Vries, Simon J. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985.
Dever, William G. Archaeology, Material Culture and the Early Monarchical Period
in Israel. Pages 10315 in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israels Past.
Edited by Diana V. Edelman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supple-
ment Series 127. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte; eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
Alten und Neuen Testaments 108. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.
Diodorus Siculus. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 19261965.
Dion, Paul-Eugne. Sennacheribs Expedition to Palestine. Eglise et thologie 20
(1989): 525.
Dougherty, Raymond P. Sennacherib and the Walled Cities of Judah. Journal of
Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 16071.
Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1905.
Dubovsk, Peter. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian
Intelligence Services and its Significance for 2 Kings 1819. Biblica et orientalia 49.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006.
Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 3. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987.
Edelman, Diana V. Doing History in Biblical Studies. Pages 1325 in The Fabric of
History: Text, Artifact and Israels Past. Edited by Diana V. Edelman. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 127. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Eissfeldt, Otto. Ezechiel als Zeuge fr Sanheribs Eingriff in Palstina. Pages 23954
in Kleine Schriften. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962.
. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by P. Ackroyd. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1965.
Elat, Moshe. Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 100539 b.c. Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik and Israel Exploration Society, 1977.
Elton, Geoffrey R. The Practice of History. 2d ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Ephal, Israel. On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires:
A Research Outline. Pages 88106 in History Historiography and Interpretation:
Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by Moshe Weinfeld and Hayim
Tadmor. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.
Eslinger, Lyle M. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 112. Bible
and Literature Series 10. Decatur, Ga.: Almond, 1985.
bibliography 205

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

Hardmeier, Christof. Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzhlkommunika-


tive Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzhlungen in II Reg
1820 und Jer 3740. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
187; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Heller, Roy L. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause
Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Studies 55. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Herodotus. Translated by Alfred D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press, 19261965.
Hjelm, Ingrid. Jerusalems Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 404; Copenhagen International
Seminar 14. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Hobbs, T. Raymond 2 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 13. Waco, Tex.: Word,
1985.
Hoffmann, Hans Detlef. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema
der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 66. Zrich: Theologischer, 1980.
Holloway, Steven W. Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its
Implications for Sennacheribs Letter to Hezekiah in 2 Kings. Pages 276314 in
The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gsta W. Ahlstrm. Edited by Steven
W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 190. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Honor, Leo Lazarus. Sennacheribs Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study. Con-
tributions to Oriental History and Philology 12. New York: Columbia, 1926.
Horn, Siegfried H. Did Sennacherib Campaign Once or Twice Against Hezekiah?
Andrews University Seminary Studies 4 (1966): 128.
House, Paul R. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism.
Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1992.
. The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Pages
323 in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Edited
by Paul R. House. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament 3. 3 vols.
Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 19931996.
Hutter, Manfred. Hiskija, Knig von Juda: Ein Beitrag zur judischen Geschichte in
assyrischer Zeit. Grazer theologische Studien 9. Graz, Austria: Institut fr kume-
nische Theologie und Patrologie an der Universitt Graz, 1982.
Immerwahr, Henry R. Form and Thought in Herodotus. Philological Monographs 23.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1993.
. The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Inves-
tigated Anew. Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 33272.
Jenkins, A. K. Hezekiahs Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings 18:13
19:37. Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 28498.
Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984.
Jong, Stephan de. Hizkiah en Zedekia; Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18:1719:37/
Jes. 3637 tot Jer. 37:110. Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie
5 (1984): 13546.
Jonker, Louis C. Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles: Late Stages of the Josiah Recep-
tion in II Chr. 34f. Textpragmatische Studien zur Hebrischen Bibel 2. Gtersloh:
Gtersloher, 2003.
208 bibliography

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

Longman, Tremper. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Foundations of


Contemporary Interpretation 3. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, 1987.
Lowery, R. H. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 120. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1991.
Luckenbill, Daniel D. The Annals of Sennacherib. Oriental Institute Publications 2.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924.
Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint,
IIII. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992/1996.
Machinist, Peter. The Rab Saqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face
of the Assyrian Other. Hebrew Studies 41 (2000): 151168.
Massmann, Ludwig. Sanheribs Politik in Juda: Beobachtungen und Erwgungen zum
Ausgang der Konfrontation Hiskias mit den Assyrern. Pages 16780 in Kein Land
fr sich allein. Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.
Mayer, Walter. Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-
Syrien-Palstinas und Mesopotamiens 9. Munster: Ugarit, 1995.
. Sennacheribs Campaign of 701 b.c.e.: The Assyrian View. Pages 168200 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.
Mayes, Andrew D. H. The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional
Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London: SCM Press, 1983.
Mazar, Benjamin. Encyclopedia Miqrait. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 195082.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. The Apology of David. Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980):
489504.
McCarthy, Dennis J. II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History.
Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 13138.
McConville, J. Gordon. Narrative and Meaning in the Book of Kings. Biblica 70
(1989): 3149.
McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kingship. Pages 286314 in Israel Constructs
its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de
Pury, Thomas Rmer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament: Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
. The Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Pages 281307 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.
. Deuteronomistic History. Pages 16068 in vol. 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
. The Trouble with Kings: the Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic
History. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
. The Chroniclers Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Harvard Semitic Monographs
33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
McNeill, William H. The Greatest Might-Have-Been of All. The New York Review
of Books 46 (1999): 62.
. Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1976.
Melugin, Roy F. The Formation of Isaiah 4055. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.
Millard, Alan. R. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910612 b.c. State Archives of
Assyria Studies 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994.
Miller, J. Maxwell Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without Relying on the
Hebrew Bible? Pages 93102 in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israels Past.
Edited by Diana Edelman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series 127. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
bibliography 211

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

Seitz, Christopher R. Account A and the Annals of Sennacherib: A Reassessment.


Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993): 4757.
. Review of Christof Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas:
Erzhlkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaer-
zhlungen in II Reg 1820 und Jer 3740. Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991):
51113.
. Zions Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of
Isaiah 3639. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Shafer, Robert Jones. A Guide to Historical Method. 3d ed. Chicago: Dorsey, 1980.
Shea, William H. Hezekiah, Sennacherib and Tirhakah: A Brief Rejoinder. Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 45 (2000): 3738.
. Jerusalem Under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice? Biblical Archaeology
Review 25 (1999): 36.
. The New Tirhakah Text and Sennacheribs Second Palestinian Campaign.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 35 (1997): 18187.
. Sennacheribs Second Palestinian campaign. Journal of Biblical Literature 104
(1985): 40118.
Simons, Jan Jozef. Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories. Studia
Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 1. Leiden: Brill, 1952.
Skinner, John. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Smelik, Klaas A. D. King Hezekiah Advocates True Prophecy: Remarks on Isaiah
xxxvi and xxxvii//II Kings xviii and xix. Pages 93128 in Converting the Past: Stud-
ies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. Edited by Klaas A. D. Smelik.
Oudtestamentische Studin 28. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
. Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah 36 and 37. Pages
7093 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. Edited
by A. S. van der Woude. Oudtestamentische Studin 24. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Smend, Rudolf. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978.
. Das Gesetz und die Vlker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistishen Redaktionsge-
schichte. Pages 494509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von
Rad. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971.
Smith, Robert H. Lebanon. Pages 26970 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited
by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Soden, Wolfram von. Akkadisches Handwrterbuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 195981).
Soggin, J. Alberto. A History of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.
Spieckermann, Hermann. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. Forschungen zur
Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 129. Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Stade, Bernhard. Miscellen: Anmerkungen zu 2 K. 1521. Zeitschrift fr die alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886): 15689.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama
of Reading. The Indiana Literary Biblical Series. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1985.
Sweeney, Marvin A. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition,
With Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1994.
. Sennacheribs Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Consider-
ations. Zion 50 (1985): 6580.
Tadmor, Hayim and Mordechai Cogan. Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings:
Historiographic Considerations. Biblica 60 (1979): 491508.
bibliography 215

Thiele, Edwin R. Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A Reconstruction of the


Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1951.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-
van 1992.
Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and
Archaeological Sources. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
4. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
. Martin Noth and the History of Israel. Pages 8190 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.
Uehlinger, Christoph. Clio in a World of PicturesAnother Look at the Lachish Reliefs
from Sennacheribs Southwest Palace at Nineveh. Pages 221305 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.
Ussishkin, David. Sennacheribs Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and
Jerusalem. Pages 33958 in Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A
Tribute to Nadav Naaman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
. The Camp of the Assyrians in Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 29 (1979):
13742.
Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical Criti-
cism. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of
Biblical History. Yale University Press, 1983.
Vogt, Ernst. Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr. Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1986.
Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Watson, Duane F. and Alan J. Hauser. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehen-
sive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Biblical Interpretation Series 4.
Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Waugh, Patricia, ed. Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
Webster, Edwin C. Strophic Patterns in Job 2942. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 30 (1984): 95109.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian
Analogy. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (1964): 20212.
. Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Pages
121147 in History, Historiography and Interpretation. Edited by Moshe Weinfeld
and Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993.
. Deuteronomy 111. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
Weippert, Helga. Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfllung im deuter-
onomistischen Geschichtswerk Pages 11631 in Congress Volume: Leuven. Edited
by J. A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
. Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren
Forschung. Theologische Rundschau 50 (1985): 21349.
Weiss, Meir. The Bible From Within: the Method of Total Interpretation. Translated by
B. Schwartz. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja 2839. 3 vols. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 10.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982.
216 bibliography

Wolff, Hans Walter. Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Zeit-


schrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 17186.
Wright, John W. The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 60 (1993): 87105.
Wrthwein, Ernst. Die Bcher der Knige: 1. Kn. 172. Kn. 25. Das Alte Testament
Deutsch 11. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Yurco, Frank J. The Shabaka-Shebitku Coregency and the Supposed Second Campaign
of Sennacherib Against Judah: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Biblical Literature
110 (1991): 3545.
. Sennacheribs Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku.
Serapis 6 (1980): 22140.
Zevit, Ziony. A Chapter in the History of Israelite Personal Names. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 250 (1983): 116.
Zimmerli, Walther. Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel: Eine theologische
studie. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 27. Zrich:
Zwingli, 1954.
SCRIPTURE INDEX

Genesis 17:16 149 n. 32


4:18 44 17:17 148, 148 n. 32, 149,
12:13 51 n. 51 149 n. 32
20:2 158 n. 64 20:11 146 n. 21
28:7 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64 20:12 161 n. 75
38:12 161 n. 81 20:19 161 n. 75
41:15 80 n. 130, 58 n. 64 20:20 161 n. 74
27:15 49 n. 42
Exodus 28:52 117 n. 106, 161 n. 75
6:9 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64 31 19
10:17 142 n. 11, 143 31:113 29 n. 88
14:2 159 n. 65 31:34 29 n. 88
25:11 148 n. 29
25:13 148 n. 29 Joshua
25:24 148 n. 29 1:1115 21 n. 89
25:28 148 n. 29 1:15 157 n. 60
26:29 148 n. 29 1:17 158 n. 64
26:37 148 n. 29 2:24 108 n. 78
27:2 148 n. 29 5:2 158 n. 65
27:6 148 n. 29 6:2 108 n. 78
30:3 148 n. 29 78 106 n. 66
30:5 148 n. 29 8:1 108 n. 78
36:38 148 n. 29 8:18 108 n. 78
37:2 148 n. 29 10:8 108 n. 78
37:4 148 n. 29 10:1214 153
37:11 148 n. 29 10:19 108 n. 78
37:15 148 n. 29 10:34 152 n. 76
37:26 148 n. 29 12 21
37:28 148 n. 29
38:2 148 n. 29 Judges
38:6 148 n. 29 2:1123 21 n. 89
38:25 148 n. 29 3:29 150 n. 39
38:28 148 n. 29 6:4 161 n. 75
6:8 52 n. 57
Leviticus 6:1126 131 n. 170
2:12 161 n. 81 6:34 131 n. 170
6:3435 131 n. 170
Deuteronomy 6:3640 131 n. 170
1:14:43 29 n. 88 11:26 150 n. 39
1:64:40 49 n. 41 19:7 158 n. 65
4:12 115 n. 103 20:48 146 n. 21
4:28 49
4:4430:20 59 n. 41 1 Samuel
5:26 49 n. 40, 122 n. 128 1:10 34 n. 152, 52 n. 54
7:5 169 n. 6 112 34 n. 152
12:3 169 n. 6 2:2736 55 n. 65
16:18 50 n. 46 47:1 193 n. 6
16:22 50 n. 46
218 scripture index

6:14 162 n. 82 8:338 52 n. 54


7:8 53 n. 59 8:1461 21 n. 89
9:69 53 n. 57 8:2353 125 n. 144
11 47 8:2829 52 n. 54, 131 n. 172
11:1 43, 161 nn. 7576 8:33 143 n. 14
11:13 43 8:37 161 n. 75
11:2 27 8:41 52 n. 54
12 21 n. 89 8:47 159 n. 65
12:19 53 n. 59 8:48 143 n. 14
13:2 146 n. 21 10 148
13:16 146 n. 21 10:12 155 n. 53
15:24 142 10:2 152, 152 nn. 4647
15:25 143 10:6 80 n. 130
19:1821 107 n. 72 10:1423 148
20:15 161 n. 75 10:18 148, 148 n. 29
22:5 52 n. 57 10:21 148 n. 31
23:8 161 n. 75 10:26 149 n. 32
11:14 51 n. 51
2 Samuel 11:29 52 n. 57
2 193 n. 6 11:41 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
2:23 162 n. 83 12:15 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
4 193 n. 6 13:6 131 n. 167
6 193 n. 6 13:18 51 n. 51
7 21 n. 89, 125 n. 144 13:33 158 n. 65
7:5 52 n. 57 14 145 n. 19
7:27 52 n. 54, 131 n. 172, 14:7 53 n. 57
132 14:19 94 n. 32
11 51 n. 51 14:24 42 n. 12
12:12 142 14:25 40 n. 6, 42 n. 11
12:28 161 n. 76 14:2526 62 n. 93, 144 n. 17,
15:19 159 n. 65 150 n. 41
20:15 161 n. 79 14:26 145, 146 n. 23
24 53, 183 n. 76 14:27 145, 147
24:10 53 14:29 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
24:11 52 n. 57, 53 15 145 n. 19
24:17 53 15:18 90 n. 12
24:18 53 15:7 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
15:11 124 n. 140
1 Kings 15:1621 62 n. 93
1:28 162 n. 82 15:1622 127, 145
3:16 162 n. 82 15:18 41 n. 6, 145, 146 n. 23
5:5 117 n. 106 15:23 195 n. 15
6 144 n. 18 15:31 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
67 149 16:5 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
6:15 148 n. 29 16:14 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
6:20-22 148 16:15 161 n. 75
6:20 148 n. 29 16:20 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
6:21 148 n. 29 16:27 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
6:22 147 n. 27, 148 n. 29 17:1 162
6:28 148 n. 29 17:7 162
6:30 148 n. 29 18 131 n. 170
6:35 148 n. 29 18:29 161 n. 81
6:32 144, 144 n. 18 19:13 131 n. 170
7:50 144 n. 18 20 108 n. 81, 109110,
scripture index 219

113 n. 100, 134, 15:29 47 n. 32


148 n. 35 15:31 94 n. 32
20:130 107 15:36 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
20:134 107 16 145 n. 19
20:12 102 n. 56 1618 53 n. 57
20:1315 48 16:24 128
20:22 161 16:5 41 n. 6, 62 n. 93,
20:28 48, 108 161 n. 75
22:7 53 n. 57 16:6 68
22:39 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 16:7 47 n. 32
22:45 195 n. 15 16:79 41 n. 6, 62 n. 93
22:46 94 n. 32 16:8 128, 146,
24:10 161 n. 74 146 nn. 2223, 147
25:2 161 n. 74 16:9 158 n. 64
16:10 47 n. 32
2 Kings 16:12 161 n. 81
1:18 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 16:19 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
1:915 107 n. 72 17 114, 119 n. 115, 140,
3:11 53 n. 57 168
4:35 159 n. 65 17:3 47 n. 32
5:9 162 n. 83 17:4 129 n. 160, 140,
5:15 162 n. 82 178 n. 46
6 152 17:6 77
6:14 152, 153 17:718 140
6:1920 153 17:727 21 n. 89
6:21 153 17:9 126, 140
6:23 153 17:12 169 n. 7
6:24 161 n. 75 17:15 169 n. 7
8:9 162 n. 82 17:17 169 n. 7
8:23 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 17:1819 141
10:6 115 n. 103 17:1820 141 n. 4
10:34 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 17:20 141
12 145 n. 19 17:2122 141
12:14 145 17:24 77
12:1819 41 n. 6, 62 n. 93, 17:39 119
144 n. 17, 150 n. 41 18 43, 145 n. 19
12:19 146, 146 n. 23, 195 1819 12, 13
n. 15 1820 19 n. 80, 84
12:20 94 n. 32 18:1 44 n. 23, 7071, 90,
13:12 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 156
13:8 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 18:12 88
14 145 n. 19 18:16 140 n. 1
14:14 62 n. 93, 146, 146 18:2 90
n. 23 18:319:37 111
14:15 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 18:3 90, 124125, 126
14:18 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 n. 147, 168 n. 5
14:28 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 18:4 91 n. 15, 96 n. 37, 125,
15:6 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 168 n. 5, 169 n. 6
15:11 94 n. 32 18:5 117, 117 n. 106, 118,
15:14 124 n. 140 124, 148, 157, 195
15:15 94 n. 32 18:56 168 n. 5
15:19 47 n. 32 18:6 124, 124 n. 138,
15:21 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15 168 n. 5
15:26 94 n. 32 18:7 124, 129 n. 157,
220 scripture index

139140, 143 n. 12, 18:1637 92, 100


174, 186 18:17 14 n. 62, 44, 46,
18:8 91, 126, 140, 174175, 46 n. 30, 47, 47
186 n. 31, 6667, 69,
18:9 41 n. 6, 42 n. 12, 44 , 69 n. 110, 70, 106,
47 n. 32, 70, 9192, 113 n. 100, 114,
156 n. 57 114 n. 101, 151152,
18:910 9, 179 n. 55 152 nn. 4647,
18:912 91, 9798, 101, 110, 153154, 156 n. 57,
114, 141, 141 n. 5, 162, 176, 188,
168 18:1718 40
18:919:37 9 18:1719 41 n. 7, 9 n. 43,
18:10 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 71, 41 n. 7
72, 156 n. 57, 91 18:1719:19 14 n. 62
18:11 91 18:1719:37 45, 4041, 50,
18:12 92, 114 n. 102, 115, 68 n. 109
169 n. 7, 195 18:1719:9 5, 61
18:13 9 n. 43, 14 n. 62, 42, 18:1736 103105
42 n. 11, 43 n. 16, 18:1737 14 n. 62, 188
44, 44 n. 22, 6667, 18:18 43, 65, 72, 121, 129,
6970, 84 n. 140, 92, 132
141, 156 n. 57, 161, 18:18 91, 91 n. 16, 9798,
176 n. 40, 187 101, 110, 139, 168
18:1315 104, 111 18:19 40, 44 n. 23, 66, 70,
18:1316 4, 16 n. 65, 39 n. 1, 117, 117 n. 106, 156,
40, 40 nn. 56, 41, 156 n. 57
42 n. 10, 43, 44 n. 22, 18:1921 117
4647, 62, 195, 198 18:1925 69, 122
18:1319:37 99, 101, 110, 114 18:1935 41, 111
18:1319:7 80 18:20 117, 117 n. 106,
18:1319:9 9 156157
18:1320:21 98 18:21 57, 117, 117 n. 106,
18:14 42, 44, 44 n. 22, 46, 140
6668, 7071, 100 18:22 14 n. 62, 44 n. 23, 66,
n. 49, 105, 108, 112, 70, 117, 117 n. 106,
112 n. 95, 113 n. 100, 126 n. 147, 129, 156
114, 114 n. 101, 126, n. 57
163, 176, 176 n. 40, 18:23 56, 82 n. 134, 96 n. 37
187 18:24 112 n. 95, 113, 117,
18:1416 14 n. 62, 16 n. 65, 69, 117 n. 106, 154 n. 50
127, 142 n. 9 18:25 14 n. 62, 96 n. 37, 109
18:1419:37 98 n. 83, 116, 126, 132
18:15 44 nn. 2223, 66, 18:26 43, 72, 92, 114 n. 102,
7071, 104, 68 115, 132
18:1516 68 n. 109, 156 n. 57, 18:2627 14 n. 62
188, 190 18:27 113 n. 100, 114
18:16 41 n. 7, 44, 44 18:28 14 n. 62, 92, 115
nn. 2223, 6668, 18:2835 69, 82, 82 n. 135
70, 70 n. 111, 71, 92, 18:29 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 82,
92 n. 21, 96 n. 36, 99, 109 n. 83, 114 n. 102,
103104, 144 n. 18, 118, 122 n. 129, 123,
147 n. 25, 148, 148 129, 156 n. 57
n. 29, 149, 156 n. 57 18:2935 6
18:1618:37 111 18:30 14 n. 62, 44 n. 23,
scripture index 221

66, 70, 117 n. 106, 114 n. 102, 116, 119,


117118, 156 n. 57 120 n. 120, 158, 164
18:31 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 106, 19:78 79 n. 127
114 n. 102, 115, 156 19:79 135
n. 57 19:8 66, 93 n. 26, 104, 109,
18:3116 50 112 n. 95, 113, 114
18:3135 14 n. 62 n. 102, 163, 165, 176
18:32 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 114 19:89 40, 66, 105, 116
n. 102, 115, 118, 156 19:813 103104, 111
n. 57 19:9 6, 1011, 44 n. 23, 46,
18:33 118, 122 n. 129 56, 6061, 61 n. 91,
18:3334 77 n. 124, 82 66, 70, 75 n. 117, 80
18:3335 48 n. 130, 85, 93, 104,
18:34 56, 77, 82, 119, 122 106, 112 n. 95, 113,
n. 129, 123 113 n. 100, 114, 114
18:35 119 nn. 101102, 119, 140
18:36 92, 132 n. 3, 153, 158,
18:3619:2 40 158 n. 64, 159 n. 65,
18:3637 9 n. 43, 111 189, 198
18:369:7 111 19:913 105
18:37 43, 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 19:935 61, 77 n. 125
72, 121, 156 n. 57 19:937 66
18:3719:7 103, 104 19:10 44, 44 n. 22, 67, 69,
19 153 70, 71 n. 112, 76,
1920 65, 117 80, 82, 109, 117,
19:1 44, 6667, 69, 69 117 n. 106, 118,
n. 110, 70, 92 n. 24, 122 n. 129, 123,
93, 100, 114 n. 102, 156 n. 57, 159
115, 130, 157 19:1013 6, 74, 82, 111, 122,
19:14 111 131
19:17 14 n. 62 19:1034 83
19:134 100 19:11 114 n. 102, 116, 119
19:2 43 n. 18, 65, 7273, 19:1115 81
113 n. 100, 114, 114 19:12 122 n. 129, 123
n. 101, 157 19:1213 48, 77, 77 n. 124, 82
19:3 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 125, 19:13 83, 122 n. 129, 156
132 n. 174, 156 n. 57, n. 57
178 n. 48 19:1315 103
19:34 93, 131 n. 169 19:14 44 n. 23, 50, 56,
19:4 48, 50, 5254, 113 6566, 70, 131,
n. 100, 114, 114 156 n. 57, 159160
n. 102, 115, 122123, 19:1419 111
125, 135, 146 n. 21, 19:1434 104, 111
157 19:15 44 n. 23, 66, 70, 74,
19:5 44, 6667, 69, 69 79, 93, 121 n. 127
n. 110, 70, 73, 93 19:1519 74
19:57 111 19:1520 125
19:6 54, 109, 114 n. 102, 19:16 47, 48, 52, 54, 113
116 n. 100, 114, 114
19:67 54, 65, 75, 105, 158 n. 102, 116, 122,
n. 62 122 n. 127
19:7 5, 54, 61 n. 91, 66, 19:1618 74
8081, 97 n. 40, 101, 19:1619 111
109, 112 n. 95, 113, 19:18 49, 63, 122 n. 127
222 scripture index

19:19 74, 79, 121 n. 127, 20:5 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24, 112


135 n. 96, 114 n. 101
19:20 44 n. 23, 53, 66, 70, 20:56 53 n. 57
75, 75 n. 117, 80 20:6 53 n. 57, 102, 119
n. 130, 81, 85, 93, 109, 20:8 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24
113 n. 100, 114, 114 20:9 53 n. 57, 94, 112 n. 96
n. 102, 116, 158 n. 64 20:911 112 n. 96
19:2024 106 20:10 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24, 94,
19:2034 111 112 n. 96
19:2128 61, 74 20:11 94 n. 30, 112 n. 96
19:2131 54, 58, 76, 81 20:12 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24,
19:2134 58 94, 94 n. 31, 99,
19:22 54, 75, 117 113 n. 100, 114
19:23 56, 75, 109 nn. 101102,
19:24 57 20:1219 9899, 102
19:25 114 n. 102, 116 20:1221 110
19:28 5, 48, 61, 65 n. 101, 20:13 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24,
109, 112 n. 95, 113, 94, 102 n. 56, 114
116 nn. 101102
19:2931 47, 57, 74 20:14 44, 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24,
19:30 58, 117 94
19:3031 57 n. 79 20:15 94, 44 n. 23, 45
19:31 57 n. 79 n. 24
19:32 80 n. 130, 109, 155 20:16 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24,
n. 53, 161 n. 80, 191 94, 114 nn. 101102
19:3234 58, 74, 76, 160 20:19 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24, 50,
19:3236 81 94
19:33 5, 61, 109, 112 n. 95, 20:20 45 n. 24, 94, 94 n. 32,
113 195 n. 15,
19:3334 58 20:2021 88, 99
19:34 118 n. 112 20:21 44 n. 23, 45 n. 24,
19:35 2, 3, 16 n. 68, 61, 94 n. 34
93, 104106, 109, 20:22 45 n. 24
162164, 183 n. 76, 20:30 44 n. 23
185, 189 20:42 110 n. 86
19:3536 76, 104, 111, 184 n. 79 21:1 94 n. 33
19:36 40, 6061, 62 21:17 94 n. 32
nn. 9495, 93, 104, 21:25 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
106, 109, 112 n. 95, 2129 58
164, 189 23:28 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
19:3637 6, 60, 61 23:29 50 n. 51, 194 n. 11
19:37 11, 40, 81, 98, 104, 23:35 145 n. 19
106, 109, 111 24:5 94 n. 32, 195 n. 15
20 45 n. 24, 98, 109, 113 24:13 62 n. 93, 145 n. 19
n. 100 24:19 195
20:1 42 n. 11, 44 n. 23, 24:20 195
45 n. 24, 53 n. 57, 25:1 161 n. 76, 161 n. 78
9394, 98 25:12 179 n. 55
20:111 9899, 102, 110 25:1317 62 n. 93, 145 n. 19
20:118 9 n. 43
20:130 107 1 Chronicles
20:134 107 9:2 152
20:2 94 20:1 161 n. 75
20:3 45 n. 24, 44 n. 23, 94 26:16 155
scripture index 223

26:18 161 12:2 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18


20:23 58 n. 81
2 Chronicles 20:3 76
3:6 148 n. 29 21:2 161, 161 n. 75
4:9 148 n. 29 22 44 n. 20, 73 n. 115
6:28 161 n. 75 22:2 7 n. 33
9:1 152, 152 n. 46 22:11 155 n. 54
9:2 152 22:1525 72, 73 n. 114
9:17 148 n. 29 23:13 161 n. 78
16:112 127 n. 153 26:3 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
17:2 142 n. 8 26:34 118 n. 113
19:5 142 n. 8 26:4 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
26:16 155 n. 54 28:1416 117 n. 109
26:18 155 n. 54 29:3 161 nn. 7476, 78
28 128 n. 155 30:17 178 n. 46, 118 n. 114
28:16 128 n. 155 30:7 117 n. 109
28:20 128 n. 155 30:12 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
30:2 57 31:17 117 n. 109
32:123 1 n. 3 31:1 118 nn. 113114,
32:10 161 n. 74 178 n. 46, 196 n. 18
32:21 114 n. 101, 162 n. 86 31:3 118 n. 114, 178 n. 46
33:14 142 n. 8 31:4 8
34:10 148 n. 29 31:7 184 n. 80
35:2022 51 n. 51 32 118 n. 113
32:3 115 n. 103
Ezra 32:9 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
9:14 57 n. 78 32:10 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
32:11 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
Nehemiah 3637 5
9:18 125 n. 142 3639 52 n. 56
9:26 125 n. 142 36:1 84 n. 140, 111
36:2 152 n. 46, 152
Job 36:4 117 n. 107, 118 n. 113,
29 120 n. 118 196 n. 18
36:5 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
Psalms 36:6 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
93 120 n. 118 36:7 196 n. 18, 118 n. 113
36:9 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
Qohelet 36:10 118 n. 113, 196 n. 18
117 n. 107 36:15 196 n. 18, 118 n. 113
9:13 161 n. 78 37:3 178 n. 48
37:6 56 n. 67
Isaiah 37:9 158 n. 64, 159 n. 65
1:8 161 n. 75 37:23 56 n. 67
7 52 n. 56, 57 n. 79, 46:3 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
194 n. 13 46:12 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
7:1 161 55:2 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
7:3 57 n. 79, 155 n. 54
7:79 48 n. 35 Jeremiah
7:1416 58 n. 81, 76 3:7 143 n. 14
7:1417 48 n. 35 4:1 143 n. 14
8:34 76 6:6 161 n. 79
10:519 11 7:10 162 n. 82
10:2023 57 n. 79 10:3 49 n. 42
224 scripture index

19:9 161 n. 75 24:2 161 n. 75


29:89 117 n. 110 26:8 161 n. 78
32:24 161 n. 79 29:67 129 n. 160, 176
32:33 115 n. 103 n. 46
33:4 161 n. 79 35:12 125 n. 142
36:3 53 n. 59 36:7 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
36:25 80 n. 130, 158 n. 64
3740 10 Daniel
37 10 n. 45, 53 n. 59 1:1 161 n. 75
37:3 53 n. 59, 131 n. 168
37:68 129 n. 160, 178 n. 46 Hosea
39:1 161 n. 75 12:2 129 n. 160, 178 n. 46
42 131 n. 167
42:2 53 n. 59 Micah
42:3 53 n. 59 1:10 186 n. 88
44:16 115 n. 103 3:11 11 n. 51
46:25 178 n. 46, 129 n. 160 4:14 161 n. 74
50:29 161 n. 76
52:4 161 nn. 76, 78 Nahum
52:5 161 n. 74 3:14 161 n. 74

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

Ackroyd, P. R. 52, 8384, 195 Childs, B. S. 1, 410, 1314, 1920, 25,


Aharoni, Y. 168 37, 3940, 42, 4446, 4850, 5456,
Albertz, R. 169, 182183 5964, 68, 7576, 8182, 8485, 100,
Albright, W. F. 15 106107, 130131, 133134, 136139,
Alonso Schkel, L. 119 143, 150, 169, 179, 196, 198
Alter, R. 31, 106, 109, 112, 122124, Clements, R. E. 1, 89, 11, 20, 28, 52,
126, 130 5658, 106, 130, 163
Amit, Y. 29, 30, 97100, 102104, Cogan, M. 13, 1518, 2627, 40,
106107, 110, 112, 123, 130, 4246, 48, 5051, 5557, 59, 62, 75,
149150 79, 95, 113, 123, 125, 127128, 145,
Auffret, P. 120 147, 150151, 154156, 158, 163, 169,
Auld, A. G. 168 175, 177, 179, 182184, 186190
Cohen, C. 12, 180
Bahat, D. 155 Cohn, R. L. 32, 124125
Bar-Efrat 3031, 87, 101106, Collins, J. 173
112113, 119, 121, 124125, 130, Conkin, P. K. 171
158159 Cross, F. M. 22, 24, 84
Barstad, H. 170 Cryer, F. H. 170
Barth, H. 8
Barton, J. 27, 29, 30, 3536, 58, 135 Dalley, S. 17
Bates, R. D. 15 Darr, K. P. 178
Becking, B. 16, 1920, 25, 96 Davies, G. F. 37
Begg, C. T. 15, 128, 135, 149, 190 Davies, P. R. 170171, 182
Ben Zvi, E. 1213, 1920, 46, 52, 59, De Vries, S. 147
77, 102, 126, 142143, 165, 170, 175, Dever, W. G. 46, 176
177178, 180182, 185, 192, 196 Dietrich, W. 2224, 51, 140
Berlin, A. 31, 105 Dion, P. E. 130, 159
Blenkinsopp 52 Dougherty, P. 15
Bloch, M. 171 Driver, S. R. 40
Boda, M. J. 53, 57, 131 Dubovsk , P. 1213, 18
Bodner, K. 55 Duhm, B. 52, 61
Borger, R. 2 Durham, J. 148, 193
Bostock, D. A. 29, 117, 125, 151, 156,
160 Edelman, D. V. 46, 171173, 197
Brettler, M. Z. 141 Eissfeldt, O. 15, 195
Briant, P. 25, 173 Elat, M. 147
Bright, J. A. 2, 1516, 19, 101, 130, Elton, G. R. 37, 171
155 Ephal, I. 178179
Briggs, C. A. 80, 147, 154 Eslinger, L. M. 3132, 34, 36
Brueggemann, W. 129 Evans, C. D. 15
Buber, M. 112113 Evans, P. S. 114, 193
Budde, K. 22, 52 Ewald, H. 21
Burrows, M. 155 Exum, J. C. 30, 180

Camp, L. 5 Fewell, D. N. 30, 119, 132133


Campbell, A. F. 168, 193 Fokkelman, J. P. 31, 105, 120
Carlson, R. A. 122 Frahm, E. 16
226 author index

Freedman, D. N. 154 Knoppers, G. N. 18, 21, 23, 26, 131,


Friedman, R. E. 23 169, 199
Fritz, V. 16, 18, 7576, 88, 107108, Konkel, A. H. 129, 142
147, 159, 163 Kooij, A. Van der 17, 29
Kuenen, A. 40, 43
Galil, G. 63
Gallagher, W. R. 1113, 18, 182 Laato, A. 7, 130, 163, 177, 181182,
Geyer, J. B. 19, 165 186, 195
Goldberg, J. 16 Le Moyne, J. 13, 82
Gonalves, F. J. 1011, 4142, 77, 130, Leeuwen, C. van 15
169 Lemaire, A. 170
Grabbe, L. L. 3, 14, 16, 1920, 27, Lemche, N. P. 18, 20, 36, 59, 170, 174,
36, 43, 167, 169171, 173, 176, 180, 184, 198
182184, 191192 Levine, L. D. 2, 170
Gray, J. 2, 6, 3942, 45, 4748, 5053, Lewy, J. 62
55, 5859, 61, 68, 75, 107, 120, 130, Liverani, M. 18, 184
135, 144, 155 Liwak, R. 41
Grayson, A. K. 41, 181 Long, B. O. 18, 24, 40, 42, 107
Gunn, D. M. 30 Long, V. P. 18, 170, 172, 197
Longacre, R. E. 89, 90, 99
Haag, H. 129, 159 Longman, T. 18, 30, 147
Habel, N. C. 2829, 46, 48, 58, 60, Lowery, R. H. 169
6364, 66, 68, 81, 85, 136 Luckenbill, D. D. 2
Hallo, W. W. 170171
Handy, L. K. 77, 168 Machinist, P. 12, 18, 180
Hardmeier, C. 9, 10, 1415, 29, 195 Massmann, L. 183
Heller, R. 8993 Mayer, W. 34, 1719, 157, 160, 163,
Hjelm, I. 14, 18, 82, 126, 145146, 175, 178, 181, 186187, 191, 199
179 Mayes, A. D. H. 23
Hobbs, T. R. 24, 118, 130, 150, 160 Mazar, B. 155
Hoffmann, H. D. 24, 27, 169 McCarter, P. K. Jr. 26
Holloway, S. W. 77 McCarthy, D. J. 21
Honor, L. L. 12, 58, 4245, 4748, McConville, J. G. 21, 24, 143
60, 101, 106, 131, 153, 163, 181, 197 McKenzie, S. L. 4, 2021, 23, 26, 125,
Horn, S. H. 1516 168, 193194, 196
House, P. R. 3031 McNeill, W. H. 11
Houtman, C. 148 Melugin, R. F. 52, 178
Hutter, M. 14, 126 Millard, A. R. 2
Miller, J. M. 163, 170, 172, 176
Immerwahr, H. R. 197 Miller, P. D. 193
Moberly, R. W. 32
Japhet, S. 58, 84 Montgomery, J. A. 2, 40, 45, 50, 96,
Jenkins, A. K. 15, 96 100, 107, 120, 135, 142, 145, 147,
Jones, G. H. 4546, 51, 54, 144, 157, 149
159 Muilenberg, J. 30, 112
Jong, S. de 10, 195 Mulder, M. J. 149
Jonker, L. C. 95, 100
Naaman, N. 23, 14, 1820, 7778, 102,
Kaiser, O. 22, 56, 75 127, 129, 169, 182
Kenik, H. A. 21, 24, 196 Nelson, R. D. 16, 2324, 34, 118, 149
King, L. W. 147 Niccacci, A. 8994
Kitchen, K. A. 15, 159, 170, 184 Noth, M. 2022, 2427, 49, 80, 135,
Klement, H. H. 28 139141, 148, 168, 191, 193195,
Klostermann, A. 147 197
author index 227

Oded, B. 163 Smith, R. H. 56


Oppenheim, A. L. 186187 Soggin, J. A. 1617, 182
Spieckermann, H. 169
Parker, Simon B. 35, 42 Stade, B. 47, 910, 1214, 20, 25, 37,
Patrick, S. 59, 164 3940, 4445, 48, 50, 5455, 5864,
Peckham, B. 23, 27 81, 8485, 120, 130, 133, 136137,
Person, Raymond F. 14 139, 196, 198, 1247
Polzin, R. 3236, 197 Sternberg, M. 3133, 3536
Porter, J. R. 193 Stromberg, R. N. 1714
Powell, M. A. 31 Sweeney, M. 88, 178
Preminger, A. 30
Prisloo, W. S. 120 Tadmor, H. 2, 6, 13, 1618, 40, 4246,
Provan, I. W. 6, 18, 23, 170171 48, 5051, 5557, 59, 62, 75, 79, 96, 113,
Pury, A. de 23, 3435, 193194 125, 128, 144, 147, 150, 154156, 169,
171, 178179, 182184
Rad G. von 22, 2425, 27, 54, 164 Theile, E. R. 96
Rawlinson, H. 2, 4 Thiselton, A. C. 30, 35
Rawlinson, G. 3, 4, 15 Thompson, T. L. 20, 27, 170
Redford, D. B. 15, 182, 184
Rendtorff, R. 52 Uehlinger, C. 176
Revell, E. J. 156 Ussishkin, D. 1718, 165
Rimmon-Kenan, S. 98
Robertson, D. A. 3132 Van Seters, J. 4, 2627
Rogers, R. W. 68, 144 Vogt, E. 4, 182
Rmer, T. 21, 26, 34
Rose, M. 23 Walsh, J. T. 149
Rosenzweig, F. 22, 112 Waltke, B. K. 91
Rost, L. 22, 193 Watson, D. F. 2728, 32, 112, 122
Rowley, H. H. 59, 168 Waugh, P. 32
Rudman, D. 1213, 18, 115, 117, 159, Webster, E. C. 120
180, 196 Weinfeld, M. 2, 6, 12, 4950, 168169,
Ruprecht, E. 9 171, 178, 180
Weippert, H. 25, 54, 55, 159, 162
anda, A. 55 Weiss, M. 30
Schmitt, H. 107 Wellhausen, J. 2, 4, 2122, 198
Seitz, C. R. 5, 10, 118, 130 Wildberger, H. 7
Shafer, R. J. 172 Wolff, H. W. 22, 24
Shea, W. H. 15, 18 Wright, J. W. 128
Simons, J. J. 155 Wrthwein, E. 14, 118, 157
Skinner, J. 55
Smelik, K. D. 4, 12, 14, 52, 55, 61, 83, Yurco, F. J. 15, 184
107, 120, 123, 131, 133, 179, 194195
Smend, R. 2224, 168 Zevit, Z. 184
SUBJECT INDEX

Account A 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 19, Historical reconstruction 1, 4, 68,


4243, 4546, 5051, 6263, 66, 130, 1316, 19, 28, 35, 3738, 96, 167175,
136, 165, 169 177, 179, 181, 183187, 189, 191,
Account B 57, 1114, 16, 4546, 198199
48, 5051, 55, 5961, 66, 70, 82, 136, Historiography 6, 25, 27, 79, 82, 174,
175 194
Angel 2, 7, 8, 11, 61, 76, 100, 104, 114,
131, 162163, 183184 Invasion 18, 1314, 1617, 1920,
Assyrian annals 3, 5, 1719, 68, 79, 27, 36, 4044, 4748, 60, 67, 6970,
144, 162, 165, 177, 179, 181, 191, 73, 78, 95, 97, 101, 105106, 111,
198 126127, 131, 136137, 141, 150,
Assyrian army/force 7, 11, 16, 18, 153154, 163, 167, 168, 171, 174,
45, 61, 79, 104, 151152, 154155, 176177, 179, 185, 198
163165, 177179, 181, 183185,
188189, 191192 Jerusalem 210, 12, 1419, 2223,
29, 40, 4748, 55, 5759, 6267,
Deuteronomist 1924, 2627, 33, 69, 7880, 82, 102104, 106,
36, 40, 46, 4950, 5354, 7781, 89, 108109, 111, 114116, 118, 122,
126127, 135, 140141, 168169, 181, 125127, 129130, 132, 134, 136,
190193, 195197 142143, 145147, 150155,
157165, 170171, 173, 175179,
Egypt/Egyptians 23, 56, 10, 15, 40, 182192, 194195
57, 59, 75, 80, 117118, 129, 140, 149,
157, 159, 165, 175, 177179, 183184, Key words 56, 112114, 116120, 135,
186, 189, 192, 196, 198 151, 196
Eliakim 43, 7274, 78, 121, 123,
133134, 155 Lachish 1819, 46, 50, 59, 67, 103,
Eltekeh 3, 179, 185 114, 116, 142, 151, 158, 163164,
176, 181, 187188, 190
Gold 3, 68, 70, 108, 143152, 157, 190, Libnah 103, 116, 150, 158,
192 163164

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

You might also like