Sennacherib's Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study 9781463212926

Citation preview

Sennacherib*s Invasion of Palestine

Analecta Gorgiana

32 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Sennacherib*s Invasion of Palestine

A Critical Source Study

Leo L. Honor

1 gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-59333-626-4

Printed in the United States of America

ISSN 1935-6854

TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER

NOTE The dissertation of Mr. Leo L. Honor was begun under the supervision of my late colleague Dr. Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh. It deals with a subject that has always been of interest to students of the Biblical narrative, especially since the re-discovery of Babylonia and Assyria. Mr. Honor has gone with much care to the sources of the subject with the end in view of finding out their real value and of testing the relation that these sources bear one to the other. He has worked with much caution and has drawn conclusions with much prudence. I commend his work to all those who are interested in this period of history. RICHARD

April 28, 1926.

VII

GOTTHEIL

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page CHAPTER I.

PART I — T h e Assyrian Sources

1

A.

The Annals of Sennacherib

.

.

.

.

.

1

B.

The Display Inscriptions

.

.

.

.

.

6

C.

Inscriptions Later Than the T a y l o r Prism

.

D.

A Clay Impression of a Royal Seal .

.

CHAPTER I.

PART I I — C r i t i c a l

Sennacherib's Annals NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

. I

. .

.

Found

in

the

11 . 1 2

Analysis of the Account

Campaign

.

.

.

of

Assyrian

.

.

.

.

.

.

13

.

.

.

.

.

.

26

CHAPTER I I — T h e Biblical Account of Sennacherib's Invasion of Palestine

.

.

.

A.

II K X V I I I

13-XIX

B.

I I Chronicles X X X I I

.

.

.

.

.

35

37

36

1-23

62

N O T E S TO C H A P T E R I I

68

CHAPTER I I I — T h e Prophecies of Isaiah

.

.

.

.

78

A.

Ch. X X V I I I - X X X I I I

80

B.

Anti-Assyrian Prophecies

.

.

.

.

.

89

C.

Miscellaneous Prophecies

.

.

.

.

.

101

N O T E S TO C H A P T E R I I I

Bibliography .

.

Ill

.

.

.

rx

.

.

.

.

. 1 1 6

ABBREVIATIONS. A. K. A. T . —Jirku, Altorientalischer K o m m e n t a r zum Alten Testament. B. M. Catalogue — C a t a l o g u e of t h e C u n e i f o r m T a b l e t s in t h e K o u y u n j i k Collection of the British Museum, v. I - V and Supplement. C. A. H . —Cambridge Ancient H i s t o r y . C. B. — T h e C a m b r i d g e Bible f o r Schools and Colleges. Cheyne, I. B. I.—Cheyne, T. K., Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. C. I. S. — C o r p u s Inscriptionum Semiticarum. C. O. T . — S c h r ä d e r , E. C u n e i f o r m Inscriptions and the Old T e s t a ment. C. T . — C u n e i f o r m T e x t s f r o m Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. D. B. —Hastings, J. Dictionary of the Bible. D. M. G. Z. —Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift. G. A. —Meyer, E. Geschichte des A l t e r t h u m s . G. Hk. —Göttinger H a n d c o m m e n t a r zum Alten Testament. H. C. —Marti, K. Kurzer H a n d - C o m m e n t a r zum Alten Testament. T. C. — T h e International Critical Commentary. J. A. — J o u r n a l Asiatique. J. A. O. S. — J o u r n a l A m e r i c a n Oriental Society. K. — K o u y u n j i k Collection of the British Museum. J. R. A. S. — J o u r n a l Royal Asiatic Society. K. A. H . I. —Keilschrifttexte aus A s s u r Historischen Inhalts. K. A. T. —Zimmern, iL and Winckler, H. Die K e i l i n s c h r i f t e n und das Alte Testament. K. B. — S c h r ä d e r , E. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. K. G. V. I. —Kittel, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, oth ed. L. O. T . —Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the L i t e r a t u r e of the Old Testament. N. H . —Nowacks Handkommentar. O. L. Z. —Orientalische Literaturzeitung. P. F. —Palestine Exploration Fund, Q u a r t e r l y Statement. R. P. — R e c o r d s of the Past. S. B. A. P. —Society of Biblical Archaeology—Proceedings. S. B. O. T. —Sacred Books of the Old Testament. ( P o l y c h r o m e Edition.) S. G. V. I. —Stade, B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. V. A. —Vorderasiatische Abteiliung, Berlin Museum. V. G. M. —Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft Mitteilungen. W . C. — T h e W e s t m i n s t e r Commentaries. Deutscher W. V. D. O. G.—Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der O r i e n t Gesellschaft. Z. A. —Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie. Z. A. T . W — Z e i t s c h r i f t f u e r die A l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t .

X

FOREWORD. The immature student of Biblical History is very often unable to find his bearings, because each book he picks up has a different account of the same events. As he begins to understand better the nature of the process whereby man is learning more and more about the remote past, he learns that new material which sheds light on the past is being continuously unearthed, and that as a result of this process each historian in retelling the old story must recast it in the light of new evidence. He appreciates the advantage that the younger historians who have access to material that was not previously available have over their predecessors, and he becomes increasingly suspicious of the older works. Eventually, he is apt to depend exclusively on the most recent works. It does not occur to him to investigate whether there were any new data discovered in the interval that elapsed since a previous book was written, which might account f o r the divergences in the various accounts. He takes that f o r granted, and consequently the more recent book is always accepted as the more authentic. In order that the immature student may be emancipated f r o m this unscientific attitude, it is important f o r him to realize that our reconstruction of past events is often based on scanty evidence. When he learns to appreciate that scholars have to resort to hypotheses to fill in lacunae or to reconcile differences and contradiction* in the sources, he will begin to understand that divergences are due, not always to differences in the sources that are available, but frequently to differences in the construction put on the same sources. There will then come a recognition of the part played by analysis, imagination and intuition in piecing together the f r a g m e n t a r y evidence in order to construct a complete whole. With that recognition there is bound to come a changed attitude on the part of the student. When he realizes that whenever differences in the accounts are due to differences in interpretation of the sources or to differences in the assumptions that are made as to what probably happened, there will be no reason f o r him to assume that the older works are less reliable than the new. He may even perceive that the intuition of an older scholar may be more penetrating than that of a younger. He will understand, too, that it is XI

only when divergences between the older and m o r e recent

accounts

a r e d u e t o d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e at t h e t i m e s t h e t w o b o o k s w e r e w r i t t e n t h a t t h e o l d e r t h e o r i e s m a y b e d i s c a r d e d in f a v o r of the new.

H e will appreciate the necessity of investigating

reasons for all

divergences that he notes.

comes a scientific

W i t h that

the

appreciation

attitude.

A d e t a i l e d s t u d y o f t h e p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d in r e c o n s t r u c t i n g account of one B i b l i c a l event;

the

a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e difficulties

v.hich

the a v a i l a b l e sources present and of the various hypotheses

which

h a v e b e e n d e v i s e d to m e e t t h e s e difficulties, w i l l s e r v e , it is h o p e d , as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the study of B i b l i c a l H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , and will h e l p t h e s t u d e n t t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e difficulty i n a s c e r t a i n i n g

definitely

w h i c h o f t h e m a n y t h e o r i e s i n t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o is m o r e l i k e l y to b e c o r r e c t . I have chosen Sennacherib's for

a study

of this nature

new m a t e r i a l invasion

of

found,

Consequently,

the

the

and the analysis of the bases f o r

to i l l u s t r a t e

version

differences

the different schools of

of Sennacherib's

these

thought

story.

campaign

in P a l e s t i n e

told in c o n s i d e r a b l e detail on a n u m b e r of c u n e i f o r m

which a r e u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d to as " S e n n a c h e r i b ' s A n n a l s . " bulls

that

nad

been

p a l a c e in N i n e v e h .

placed

These

at

the

I t is a l s o

to

represent

different

f o r m in I I C h r o n i c l e s . what

campaign. Josephus' narrative.

is

believed is

Josephus

abridged

W e a l s o possess in one of H e r o d o t u s ' narra-

T h e story account

another editions

T h e Hebrew version of Sennacherib's campaign

o r c a m p a i g n s is g i v e n in I I K i n g s a n d I s a i a h , a n d in a n tives

of

Sennacherib's

i n s c r i p t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d to o n e

s o c l o s e l y , t h a t it is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e y of the same account.

entrance

is

inscriptions,

c o n t a i n e d in t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s w h i c h w e r e r e c o r d e d o n t h e b o d i e s the

no

Sennacherib's dif-

e n g a g e d in the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the B i b l i c a l The Assyrian

light on

in

help

all

topic

practically

o f t h e s t o r y o f t h a t e v e n t m u s t b e a t t r i b u t e d to

f e r e n c e s in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , differences will

in P a l e s t i n e as the

there has been

of late, which throws

Palestine.

reconstruction

Campaign

because

to

be

an

Egyptian

of this c a m p a i g n evidently

a

free

tries to s m o o t h e n

presented by the B i b l i c a l

text;

account elements taken from

of

rendering

of

the

out some of the

moreover,

Herodotus.

XII

version

is a l s o t o l d b y

the

same

Josephus. Biblical difficulties

he incorporates into

his

In addition to the accounts of Sennacherib's campaign enumerated above, we have the following sources from which the story of Sennacherib's campaign or campaigns is to be gleaned: a small cuneiform fragment indicating that Sennacherib waged a campaign in Arabia during the latter part of his reign; an abbreviated account of Sennacherib's campaign in Palestine on one of Sennacherib's display inscriptions; a clay impression of the seal of Shabaka, king of Ethiopia, found in Nineveh; and the contemporary allusions in the prophecies of Isaiah which were delivered during the crisis in Judah, caused by Sennacherib's invasion or invasions of Palestine. In this source material are found an array of common elements, which to all intent may be accepted as facts, and a mass of discrepancies and contradictions; and there is evident a series of lacunae, voids which are to be made substantial only by theorizing, which at best is dangerous and beset with pitfalls. And so scholars who have attempted to reconstruct the story have produced these theories, or hypotheses: I. Sennacherib invaded, Palestine only once. The invasion was successful from beginning to end. II. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. During the first part of the campaign he was successful, but during the latter part his army was visited by a plague, and as a result he was compelled to return to Assyria with the remnant of his army, without accomplishing his purpose. III. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. He was successful in repressing the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of disquieting rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt and Ethiopia, or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his campaign abruptly. Consequently Sennacherib allowed Hezekiah to buy his security through the payment of tribute. IV. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The first campaign was successful from beginning to end. The second was a complete failure. V. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The first was successful. The second ended abruptly, either because of a rumor of a powerful army led by Tirhakah, or of unsettled conditions in Assyria or Babylonia. VI.

There were two campaigns XIII

of Sennacherib

in Palestine,

one

in 701, and the other during the latter part of Sennacherib's reign. During the first campaign Sennacherib was successful in repressing the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of disquieting rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt and Ethiopia or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his campaign abruptly. Consequently, in spite of the fact that Hezekiah was the leading spirit of the revolt, Sennacherib allowed him to buy his security through the payment of tribute. The second campaign was a complete failure. His army was visited by a plague and as a result, he was compelled to return to Assyria with the remnants of his army without accomplishing his purpose. These are not the story; they are reconstructions, hypotheses, theories; and in the succeeding chapters, the writer seeks to prove conclusively that none of the hypotheses is so strongly substantiated by the facts available in the sources, that it may claim greater credence than the others. Since the different conclusions which different writers have reached are not due to differences in the sources employed by them, but to different constructions put upon them, the writer proposes to make an analysis of these sources. He believes that such an analysis will indicate the impossibility, in our present state of knowledge, of coming to any definite conclusions in regards to the reconstruction of the events we are considering, and that all our conclusions must remain hypothetical in character until some new evidence will come to light, which will settle some moot questions once for all. Is a negative effort of this kind f r u i t l e s s ? Not if it is a positive value to know that there is no way of escaping the tangle into which criticism of the available sources brings us without resorting to assumptions and backing them up by f u r t h e r assumptions. Nor, if it is a definite gain to learn that all possible theories of reconstruction contain inherent weaknesses, and that that which determines f o r any given writer which hypothesis to accept is his subjective bias, rather than any definite basis f o r establishing any given view as a more f a i t h f u l representation of what actually happened. This study will be justified if the analyses made in this study will bring an immature student to a better understanding of the problems underlying the reconstruction of Biblical History; to an appreciation of the various approaches to the questions that are possible and the xiv

subjective element in writing history—if they will help him to recognize that in the absence of definite evidence, the intuitions of the older historians may approximate the truth as closely as those of their successors—if they will instill in him a sense of caution, so that he shall not accept any hypothesis too readily. -K-

-: e d B a b ) I o n . is h a r d l y to be suspected of a superfluity of m e r c y .

32

A otes

to Chapter

I

S0In a c c o r d a n c e with I I K X V I I I S, H e z e k i a h c o n q u e r e d t h e P h i l i s t i n e s . I t is possible t h a t this conquest took place some t i m e a f t e r 701, in o r d e r to win back the l a n d t h a t had been t a k e n away f r o m him. S o m e s c h o l a r s , however, believe t h a t i l e z e k i a h played a l e a d i n g role during- t h e r e b e l l i o n , b e c a u s e o f his f o r m e r c o n q u e s t o f the P h i l i s t i n e s . I f so, did H e z e k i a h e v e r g e t b a c k t h e land he lost, a n d h o w ? STProf. O l m s t e a d , ( H i s t o r y of A s s y r i a , p. 3 0 5 ) , in c o m m e n t i n g on the s t a t e m e n t o f the A s s y r i a n a n n a l i s t t h a t he took ¿00,1,30 J u d e a n p r i s o n e r s , shows t h e impossibility o f so l a r g e a n u m b e r a n d its evident e x a g g e r a t i o n . H e s u g g e s t s that it is v e r y likely t h a t the c o r r e c t n u m b e r is 150, a n d that ihe 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 was added by t h e s c r i b e . I s it not possible that the description of the s u r r e n d e r of H e z e k i a h ' s d a u g h t e r s a n d the royal h a r e m is also due to t h e vivid i m a g i n a t i o n o f the A s s y r i a n s c r i b e ? aSI do not see why P r o f . F u l l e r t o n should not be able to a c c e p t such an assumpt i o n — f o r it does n o t i n t e r f e r e seriously with h i s t h e o r y , t h a t S e n n a c h e r i b did what he did out o f c h o i c e , a n d not out of c o m p u l s i o n . P r o f . F u l l e r t o n gives as his r e a s o n why S e n n a c h e r i b w a s ready to l e a v e I l e z e k i a h on t h e throne^ t h e f a c t t h a t H e z e k i a h had no rival c l a i m a n t . I t s e e m s to m e , that S e n n a c h e r i b ' s r e a d i n e s s to 1 - a v e H e z e k i a h on t h e t h r o n e , would be much more d e p e n d e n t on t h e difficulty involved in r e m o v i n g him f r o m it, t h a n t h e question whether or n o t H e z e k i a h had a n y r i v a l c l a i m a n t lo the t h r o n e . * ° S e e t h e d i s c u s s i o n of I . X X I I I 1 - 1 4 . ^ " A n d now the k i n g of A s s y r i a invaded all S y r i a a n d P h o e n i c i a in a hostile manner. T h e n a m e o f this k i n g is also set down in t h e a r c h i v e s o f T y r e , f o r hr m a d e an e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t T y r e in t h e r e i g n o f E l u l e u s ; a n d M e n a n d e r a t t e s t s to it, who, w h e n he w r o t e his c h r o n o l o g y , a n d t r a n s l a t e d t h e a r c h i v e s o f T y r e into the G r e e k l a n g u a g e , g i v e s us the f o l l o w i n g h i s t o r y ; — ' O n e whose n a m e was E l u l e u s , r e i g n e d t h i r t y - s i x y e a r s ; this k i n g , upon the revolt of t h e C i t t e a n s , sailed to t h e m A g a i n s t these did t h e k i n g o f A s s y r i a s e n d and reduced themr a g a i n to a submission. a n a r m y , a n d in a h o s t i l e m a n n e r o v e r r a n all P h o e n i c i a , but soon made peace with them all, a n d r e t u r n e d b a c k ; but S i d o n . a n d A c e , a n d P a l a e t y r u s , r e v o l t e d ; a n d m a n y other c i t i e s t h e r e w e r e which delivered t h e m s e l v e s up to t h e k i n g of A s s y r i a . A c c o r d i n g l y , w h e n t h e T y r i a n s would not s u b m i t to h i m , t h e k i n g r e t u r n e d , ? n d fell u r o n t h e m a g a i n , while t h e P h o e n i c i a n s had f u r n i s h e d him with s i x t y ships, and S 0 0 m e n to r o w t h e m , a n d when the T y r i a n s had come upon t h e m in twelve ships, a n d t h e e n e m y ' s ships w e r e dispersed, they took 500 m e n p r i s o n e r s ; a n d t h e reputation o f all t h e c i t i z e n s o f T y r e was thereby i n c r e a s e d ; but t h e k i n g of A s s y r i a r e t u r n e d , a n d placed g u a r d s at their r i v e r s a n d a q u e d u c t s , who should h i n d e r tue Tyrians from drawing water. T h i s c o n t i n u e d f o r five y e a r s ; a n d still t h e T y n a n s bore the siege, and d r a n k o f the w a t e r they had out o f t h e well t h e y d u g . ' And this is what is w r i t t e n in the T y r i a n a r c h i v e s c o n c e r n i n g S h a l m a n e s e r , t h e k i n g of Assyria."

J o s e p h u s — A n t q u i t i e s o f t h e J e w s — B o o k I X , Ch. X I V , 2. T r a n s l a t e d by W . W h i s t o n , M . A . 31J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y r e f e r s to S h a l m a n e s e r as " S a l m a n a s a r e s . " E i s e l i n ( S i d o n p. 4 9 ) i n f e r s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' c a u t i o u s s t a t e m e n t , t h a t t h e n a m e is p r e s e r v e d in the T y r i a n a r c h i v e s , that J o s e p h u s was c o n s c i o u s t h a t t h e n a m e h a d come d o w n to him in a c o r r u p t f o r m . 92The l a t e s t book on the H i s t o r y of A s s y r i a r e v e r t s to t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e s i e g e took olace d u r i n g t h e reign of S h a l m a n e s e r . See O l m s t e a d — H i s t o r y of Assvria, p. -204f. S i n c e this study h a s been p r e p a r e d , t h e t h i r d v o l u m e of t h e C a m b r i d g e A n c i e n t H i s t o r v h a s appeared. S i d n e v S m i t h , the author o f t h e s e c t i o n on A s s y r i a , c o n c u r s with this view. C . A . I I . v . I I I . C h . I I , p. 42. 8 3 l.c. pp. 46ff. c f . J e r e m i a s — T v r u s pp. 2 9 f f . MEiseIin r e f e r s to him as T i g l a t h - P i l e t h e r I I I , in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e old n o m e n c l a ture. ^ A c c o r d i n g l y , S e n n a c h e r i b ' s r e f e r e n c e to h a v i n g placed T u b a ' l u on the r o y a l throne, must be i n t e r p r e t e d as having t r a n s f e r r e d all t h e T y r i a n possessions to his regency. ^ I n 7 0 0 he was busy in B a b y l o n i a ( t h e f o u r t h c a m p a i g n ) . 97There is a n o t h e r possibility. W e m a y a s s u m e t h a t the siege o f T y r e took place d u r i n g t h e l a t t e r part o f S e n n a c h e r i b ' s r e i g n , c o n c e r n i n g which the A s s y r i a n inscript i o n s a r e silent. H o w e v e r , the a d v o c a t e s o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s that t h e r e w e r e two c a m p a i g n s o f S e n n a c h e r i b in P a l e s t i n e , would h a r d l y want to p o s t u l a t e a c a m p a i g n i m p o r t a n t enough to i n c l u d e a five y e a r siege of one city. 98This a s s u m p t i o n is v e r v f a v o r a b l e to those who wish to discredit t h e A s s y r i a n a n n a l s , and who a s s u m e that t h e o m i s s i o n of all r e f e r e n c e to T y r e in t h e R a s s a m c v l i n d e r s a n d in t h e sub?ecpient e d i t i o n s o f the a n n a l s , is an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the scribe only described those t h i n e ? , which added l u s t r e to his k i n g , a n d o m i t t e d all unpleasant reference?. " I t the n a m e of the A««vri-.r: m o n a r c h e n e n bv Toseohus i? r e c o r d e d as badly c o r r u p t e d , t h e r e is no r e a ^ r n for a i r . e t h a t it must n e c e s s a r i l v be a c o r r u p t i o n of a n a m e b e g i n n i n g with S.

Notes

to Chapter

33

I

lw0 Essarnaddon—K. 3082 1.12-14. A s h u r b a n i p a l — R a s s a m C y l i n d e r , c o l . I I , 1.49ff. cf. C y l i n d e r A , C o l . I I 1.88. See G. S m i t h — H i s t o r y of A s h u r b a n i p a l , p. 59. A n o t h e r q u e s t i o n in r e g a r d to t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l s e q u e n c e t h a t is f r e q u e n t l y r a i s e d , is in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n t of P a d i as K i n g of E k r o n . If H e z e k i a h ' s submission took place a f t e r the blockade, a n d if t h e b l o c k a d e w a s begun a f t e r t h e f a l l of E k r o n , how was S e n n a c h e r i b able to replace him' o n t h e t h r o n e at the t i m e t h a t E k o n w a s c a p t u r e d ? P a d i m'ay h a v e been r e l e a s e d at the t i m e t h a t the t r i b u t e w a s p a i d , ( o n e of the c o n d i t i o n s of s u r r e n d e r , a l t h o u g h not m e n t i o n e d either by t h e A s s y r i a n or by t h e H e b r e w s o u r c e s ) , or a t t h e t i m e t h a t H e z e k i a h s e n t his embassy to L a c h i s h to n e g o t i a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s of s u r r e n d e r . ( T h e last supposit i o n would e x p l a i n w h y t h e r e l e a s e of P a d i is n o t m e n t i o n e d as o n e of the c o n d i t i o n s of s u r r e n d e r ) . I t is not logical to a s s u m e t h a t H e z e k i a h r e l e a s e d P a d i sufficiently e a r l y to h a v e m a d e it possible f o r P a d i to a s c e n d his t h r o n e i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the battle of E k r o n . I h a v e n o t i n c l u d e d this q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e the a n s w e r t h a t is u s u a l l y g i v e n , is v e r y s o u n d a n d n o t open to criticism. T h e A s s y r i a n scribe did n o t wish to i m p l y t h a t P a d i w a s m a d e K i n g of E k r o n prior to the b l o c k a d e of J e r u s a l e m ; but, while d i s c u s s i n g t h e f a t e of E k r o n , he t h o u g h t it best to r e l a t e t h e whole s t o r y , i n s t e a d of g o i n g on with t h e b l o c k a d e of J e r u s a l e m , a n d t h e n c o m i n g back to E k r o n after Hezekiah's surrender. T h i s is p u r e l y a q u e s t i o n of l i t e r a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d in no w a y d o e s it a f f e c t t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of the a n n a l s . li>2 It h a s been p o i n t e d out above, t h a t t h e cities m e n t i o n e d as s u b s i d i a r y to A s h k e lon, in all p r o b a b i l i t y b e l o n g e d to E k r o n . T h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t the A s s y r i a n a r m y a d v a n c e d in t w o d i v i s i o n s , m a k e s it possible to s u g g e s t t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e e r r o r . S i n c e B e t h - D a g a n , J o p p a . a n d B e n e b a r k a a r e a l o n g t h e coast, or n e a r t h e coast, w h e r e a s E k r o n is s o m e w h a t i n l a n d , it is v e r y likely t h a t t h e s e cities w e r e c a p t u r e d by the s a m e d i v i s i o n as c a p t u r e d t h e city of A s h k e l o n , a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y w e r e associated t o g e t h e r . lua M e n a h e m of S h a n r s i m u r u n a , (place u n i d e n t i f i e d ) , A b d i l i ' t i of A r v a d , U r u m i l k i of Byblos, M i t i n t i of A s h d o d , P u d u i l u of A m n i o n , K a m m u s u n a d b i of Moab, Ai alii:r a m m u of E d o m . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t Sillibel of Gaza is n o t m e n t i o n e d , a l t h o u g h the f a c t t h a t h e received p a r t of t h e t e r r i t o r y which w a s t a k e n a w a y f r o m H e z e k i a h , is a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t he too r e m a i n e d loyal to A s s y r i a . 104 To a s s u m e , t h a t t h e m a i n d i v i s i o n , (the o n e led by S e n n a c h e r i b h i m s e l f ) , w a s the o n e t h a t p r o c e e d e d a l o n g t h e coast to the S o u t h , does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t his objective was Egypt. H e w a s p r o b a b l y a w a r e t h a t t h e P a l e s t i n i a n allies w e r e e x p e c t i n g aid f r o m E g y p t , a n d he w o u l d n a t u r a l l y w a n t to be p r e p a r e d to meet the Egyptian advance. 10B If A s h k e l o n w a s a t t a c k e d by t h e m a i n a r m y , w h e r e a s E k r o n w a s a t t a c k e d b y a small division, A s h k e l o n would n a t u r a l l y h a v e s u c c u m b e d s o o n e r . 1Clli Lachish c o m m a n d s t h e r o a d to E g y p t . If S e n n a c h e r i b w a s e x p e c t i n g a n E g y p t i a n a r m y , (or if h e w a s p l a n n i n g to a t t a c k E g y p t ) , L a c h i s h w o u l d h a v e n a t u r a l l y b e e n the first o b j e c t i v e f o r t h e coast division. 10T Those who believe i n the a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e A s s y r i a n s o u r c e s , m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y a s s u m e t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n a r m y , which w a s d e f e a t e d at Elteikeh, w a s a p o w e r f u ? a r m y , a n d t h e r e is little room f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e w a s d a n g e r of a second army. 10i *There a r e d i f f e r e n t t h e o r i e s a b o u t t h e blockade, t h e t i m e w h e n it w a s s t a r t e d , its n a t u r e , etc. T h e r e a r e s o m e scholars, who believe t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e :n I I K X V I I I 17 to t h e m i l i t a r y escort t h a t a c i o m , a n i e d R a b s h a k e h a r e f e r e n c e t o the a r m y t h a t w a s a s s i g n e d to t h e t a s k of b l o c k a d i n g J e r u s a l e m . 1O0 The difficulties i n v o l v e d in a n a t t e m p t to c a p t u r e J e r u s a l e m can h a r d l y be coinpared with t h o s e p r e s e n t e d by T y r e , a n i m p r e g n a b l e i s l a n d f o r t r e s s . Nevertheless, it m u s t not b e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e c a p t u r e of J e r u s a l e m could h a v e b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d with little e f f o r t ( c f . the s u b s e q u e n t h i s t o r y of J e r u s a l e m , a s well as t h e e a r l i e r ) . J e r u s a l e m w a s p r o b a b l y t h e most difficult city to take in all P a l e s t i n e a n d S y r i i , with t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e i s l a n d f o r t r e s s . Sennacherib was undoubtedly aware what a siege of J e r u s a l e m w o u l d h a v e implied. T h e s t u b b o r n r e s i s t a n c e of D a m a s c u s a n d S a m a r i a w a s u n d o u b t e d l y a f a m i l i a r s t o r y to him. I f he could accomplish his e n d s without g o i n g to t h e t r o u b l e of a t t e m p t i n g to besiege J e r u s a l e m , he p r o b a b l y w o u l d h a v e been most h a p p y to s p a r e himself t h a t e f f o r t . llr ' E s s a r h a d d o n P r i s m — C o l . I I , lines 55-57. P u b l i s h e d I . R . , pi.45-47. F o r t r a n s l a t i o n , see R o g e r s , C . P . O . T . , p. 354. S. S m i t h i d e n t i f i e s A - d u - m u - u al d a n n u t i ( m a t ) A-ri-bi- w i t h E d o m . H e cites a p a s s a g e in t h e T a l m u d ( B e r a c h c t h 28a) in which r e f e r e n c e is m a d e to S e n n a c h e r i b ' s r a v i n ? t a k e n the A m m o n i t e s a n d Moabites i n t o captivity.

innjD nty mo j»ntyv i'n iaipa:i nnìDi pay »DI ypim

rt

idk

. ' i J i c a y m ^ i n j j "PDXT n a i w m o w n bo m -wit I do n o t believe, h o w e v e r , t h a t this s t a t e m e n t of Rabbi J o s h u a is based on historic t r a d i t i o n . J o s h u a himself cites in s u p p o r t of his s t a t e m e n t I X 13, p a r t of t h e b o a s t f u l speech t h a t I s a i a h a t t r i b u t e s to S e n n a c h e r i b . R. J o s h u a p r o b a b l y a s s u m e d that this boast w a s b a s e d on historic o c c u r r e n c e s . T h e application to M o a b a n d A m m n i has p r o b a b l y no o t h e r basis t h a n R. J o s h u a ' s desire to find a way of a d m i t t i n g t h e

34

Notes

to Chapter

I

proselyte Ammonite into the community, despite the prohibition expressed in Deut X X I I I 4. I f this statement had been based on a definite historic tradition, it would have served as a confirmation of the theory that Sennacherib waged two campaigns m Palestine, because he surely did not take the Ammonites and Moabites into captivity during his third campaign. The Ammonites and Moabites were amongst those who bought their security at the very beginning of that camapign. mSee the analysis of Herodotus, I I 141 Ch. I I pp. 56ff. m I n Ch. I I p. 51f. it is pointed out that Tirhakah could have been in command of the Egyptian army during the reign of his uncle Shabaka. See Breasted—History pf Egypt, p. 552.

CHAPTER

II.

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT O F SENNACHERIB'S INVASION O F PALESTINE While most of the Assyrian inscriptions described in the previous chapter are dated, and we know exactly how long an interval transpired f r o m the event described to the time of writing, there is no definite way of ascertaining at what time the portions of the Bible dealing with our problems were first written. Furthermore, f r o m the very nature of cuneiform inscriptions and the manner in which they have been preserved, we know that the text of each inscription has not been tampered with and that the text of those portions which have not been defaced, has come down to us in the identical f o r m in which it was originally inscribed on a particular prism, cylinder or tablet. On the other hand, f r o m the manner in which the Biblical text has come down to us, we know that there is no way of ascertaining the f o r m in which any particular text may have been written originally. Consequently, critical analysis must necessarily be hypothetical. Concerning some texts, there is sufficient probability in f a v o r of a particular hypothesis, and there is a general consensus of opinion about them amongst scholars. Concerning other texts, however, no suggested hypothesis meets all the difficulties involved; and the diversity of opinion as to which hypothesis is more likely to be correct, must of necessity be very great. Most of the texts that have any bearing on our problem belong to the latter category. It is the purpose of this chapter to investigate the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion found in the Bible, f r o m the point of view of their problematic elements, and to note the relation between differences in regard to the manner of meeting these problems, and differences in regard to the historic reconstruction of the events described in these accounts. In the following chapter, a similar analysis will be m a d e of the prophecies of Isaiah, which are believed to be a contemporary with the events discussed in this study, 1 and which therefore furnish unconscious evidence" concerning the conditions in Judea during that period. The Biblical account of Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine is

36

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

found in II Kings xvm 13—xix 37, in almost the identical form in Isaiah CH. XXXVI and XXXVII, and in an abridged form in II Chronicles XXXII 1—23. Because of the close correspondence between the accounts in Isaiah and Kings, they may be treated as different rescensions of the same source. The abridged account in Chronicles, however, will be treated as an independent account, despite the fact that it is either derived from the account in Kings and Isaiah, or from the sams sources from which these accounts are derived. A.

II KINGS X V I I I 1 3 — X I X 37 Isaiah

XXXVI—XXXVII

These two rescensions correspond to one another very closely. There are, it is true, a number of words and phrases in the account in Kings, which are omitted in the corresponding verses in Isaiah. 3 There are also, here and there, differences in grammatical construction, spelling and the like.' None of these textual variants, however, has any special importance for the historic reconstruction 6 of the events described. There is, however, one important difference in the two rescensions, viz., the omission in the Isianic account of any verses corresponding to II K xvm 14-16. 6 1. II K X V I I I 14-16 The omission of these verses from one rescension tends to differentiate them from the rest of the account in which they are contained. This differentiation is intensified by the fact that there is a marked difference in style. These differences seem to indicate that these verses are derived from a source distinct in origin from xvm 17ff. The belief that they come from an independent source is further strengthened by the fact that the name of the king in vv.14-16 is always given as ¡vptn , whereas in v.13 and 17ff. and in Isaiah xxxvi-xxxix, it is always given as •„•vprn • Consequently, there is a general consensus of opinion amongst scholars,' that these verses are derived from a source different than that from which the subsequent portion has been derived. PROBLEM

I — F r o m what source or sources derived?

has II KXVIII

14-16

been

The style and content of these verses give the impression that they are excerpts from official records. Vv. 14 and 15 seem to be taken

A Critical

Source

Study

from Royal or State annals and v. 16 from Temple annals. That there were state annals kept in the Government archives is evident from the fact that one of the officers of the king was called TOIO (Recorder.) Moreover, because of the frequent references to H-nrr ^ O 1 ? CD'H n m nso (Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Judah), we are quite certain that the Books of Kings contain extracts from these annals, taken either directly from the archives, or else from a book' of annals prepared on the basis of the official records. It is not possible to state with an equal degree of positiveness, that there were Temple records, and that excerpts from these Temple records are found in the Books of Kings, because there is no reference in Hebrew Scriptures to such records or to Temple recorders. Nevertheless, many scholars are ready to entertain such a hypothesis, because there are a number of passages, which have all the earmarks of being excerpts from an official Temple record. V.16 is one of these passages. In v. 15 is recorded the fact that in order to meet Sennacherib's demands, Hezekiah had to make an inroad into the Temple treasures. V.16 seems to represent an entry that was made by a Temple scribe at the time that this inroad was made. The theory that v.16 is derived from a different source than vv.14 and 15 is supported by the words N'nn JlJ/n • If we accept the theory that vv.14 and 15 are derived from state annals and v.16 from Temple annals, the source value of these passages is enhanced because v.16 confirms vv.14 and 15. PROBLEM I I . — W h a t is the relation of V.l3 to vv. 14-16? Is it derived from the same source as they are, or is it derived from the same source as II K XVIII i7ff-? V.13 is found in the two rescensions. The name of the King of Judah is spelled HVPtn and not rpptn • Consequently, since v.13 does not meet either of the two criteria that have been used for distinguishing vv.14-16 from the rest of the account, the most natural inference to draw concerning v.13 is that it is derived from the same source as II K XVIII 17fF. To do so, however, makes untenable the position of those scholars who see an irreconcilable conflict between vv.14-16 and 17ff., and, as a result, conclude that the two can not refer to the same events,10 because 13b is in complete harmony with

38

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

vv.14-16, and whatever conflict exists between vv.14-16 and 17ff. also exists between 13b and 17ff. In order to maintain their thesis, it is necessary for these scholars to prove that v.13 belongs to the same source as vv.14-16. There is no doubt that vv.14-15 can not stand by themselves; that in the original source from which they have been excerpted, they must have been preceded by an introductory statement describing Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine. Accordingly, these scholars can assume that v.13 represents such an introductory statement. However, if we assume that v.13 is derived from the annals, how can we explain the incorporation in the Isianic rescension of that verse and the omission of verses 14-16? And how can we account for the spelling of the name of the king? If we assume that the Isianic rescension is derived from Kings, the first question does not present any serious difficulty. It is true that it is not possible to assume that the editor of Isaiah omitted vv. 14-16 from his excerpt, because he sensed a contradiction between these verses and the subsequent account; for in that case, he would have been compelled to omit 13b. But it is possible to assume that the editor of Isaiah omitted these verses from his excerpt because Isaiah played no part in the events described by them, and that he did include v.13, because he needed some such statement to serve as an introduction to the subsequent account. If we assume that 13a is derived from the annals, the second question can not be disposed of so easily. It becomes necessary to give up the theory that any significance is to be attached to the manner in which the king's name is spelled. 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.14-16, and another in II K XVIII 17-xx 19. It is important to note, however, that only those scholars can accept 13a as a part of the annals, who are ready to accept 715 as the correct date for the accession of Hezekiah. 11 . Those scholars who believe that there is more likelihood that 727 or 720 12 is the correct date, must necessarily assume that 13a represents a chronological notice inserted by the editor, who prepared the framework of the Book of Kings. The presence of this chronological notice in the Isianic rescension is not surprising if it is assumed that the Isianic rescension is taken from Kings. Most scholars believe that a comparison of the differences in the

A Critical

Source

Study

39

two rescensions does seem to indicate that the Isianic rescension is borrowed from Kings." They believe that it is more natural to assume that a copyist would omit superfluous words or phrases," than that he would deliberately add to the text and elaborate the phraseology. 15 The arguments in favor of the usually accepted theory that Isaiah is borrowed from Kings are very strong. Prof. Olmstead, however, in an article entitled, " T h e Earliest Book of Kings," 1 ' suggests in a very convincing manner that if the editor of Isaiah were copying from a document containing vv.14-16, he would not have omitted them from his rescension. There can be no doubt that verses 14-16 were present in the oldest compilation of the Book of Kings. 17 Consequently, if we accept Olmstead's theory that these verses would have been copied if they were present in the document used by the editor of Isaiah, then we must assume that Isaiah was not derived from Kings either in an early or late form. If we assume that the two rescensions were derived independently," it is difficult to ascribe v.13 to the annals, because if the two rescensions were derived from more than one source, it is diffiicult to account for the close correspondence between them. In view of the fact that in both rescensions there is only one quotation from the annals, and in both cases it occurs at the very beginning, the coincidence implied is not so remarkable as to make it impossible to believe that each of the rescensions is a composite of two sources which have been faithfully adhered to.19 If these composites were derived independently, there would be nothing strange in the fact tnat the author of one rescension copied several verses from the annals, whereas the author of the other confined himself to one verse.*" It is, however, much more natural for those who believe that the two rescensions were derived independently, to ascribe II K x v m 13b to the same source as II K xvm 17ff. The implication of this decision has already been pointed out. If II K x v m 13a is construed as a chronological notice prepared by the editor of Kings, how can its presence in the Isianic rescension be accounted for, when it is taken for granted that the Isianic version is not derived from K i n g s ? Only by assuming that I xxxvi l a does not represent the original introduction to l b , and that l a was substituted for the original introduction by a late glossator, who was influenced by the Kings version. Would such a glossa-

40

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

tor have failed to add vv.14-16 to the Isianic rescension?

Such a

supposition is possible, but it is not based on probabilities. I f we assume that the Kings rescension was derived from the Isianic, is it possible to contend that Isaiah xxxvi lb is an excerpt from the annals?

Only, if we are ready to grant the far-fetched

possibility that the author of the Kings, while making a copy of the Isianic account, was not satisfied with a limited quotation from the annals, and although he made little or no change in the remaining portion of the text, took advantage of the fact that the state annals were also at his disposal and added vv.14-16 to 13b.

It is again

more natural to suppose that Isaiah xxxvi lb belonged to the same source as that from which Isaiah xxxvi 2ff. has been derived.

The

implications of such a supposition have already been pointed out. PROBLEM I I I . — W h a t is the relation to XVIII l l f f . ?

of II K XVIII

14-16

Because of the close correspondence between II K xvm 13-16 and the Assyrian annals, and because II K xvm 17ff. differs in its implications not only from the Assyrian annals, but also from II K xvm 13b-16 (which is believed to be derived from the Hebrew annals), there are some scholars who accept II K xvm 13b-16 as authentic history and are prepared to dismiss II K xvm 17ff. as a late legendary account, which has no historic worth.21 Other scholars can not allow themselves to discredit II K xvm 17ff. completely, and therefore assume that II K xvm 17ff. is a late account based on historic sources into which many legendary elements have been incorporated. There are many scholars, however, who see no necessity of accepting either conclusion, because they do not accept the premise upon which both are based. They are not ready to admit that there is a conflict between II K xvm 13b-16 and II K xvm 17ff. They do not regard the two accounts as two versions of the same story. They believe, instead, that the latter is a sequel to the former. 22 The fact that there is an Assyrian parallel to the former, and not to the latter, is no indication that the latter does not describe historical happenings. Since the purpose of the Assyrian annalist was to transmit to posterity the story of the glorious achievements of the

A Critical

Source

Study

41

king, it was only natural f o r him to pass over in silence all efforts of the king which were unsuccessful. 23 If during the first part of the campaign the king met with a number of signal successes, it would have been much more psychological to describe the first part as if it were the whole, than to omit all mention of the third campaign because of its unsuccessful outcome. In the first chapter, in the analysis of the Assyrian annals, it has been shown that the nature of the annals is such as to give rise to the suspicion that they do not tell the whole story, that there is something that they are trying to cover up. This suspicion, naturally, confirms the last mentioned theory. Scholars to whom this theory does not appeal, can object that this suspicion would never have arisen f r o m an examination of the Assyrian story, if the examiner had not been acquainted with the Hebrew account and had not been influenced by the desire to harmonize one with the other. Scholars who accept this theory necesssarily assume thai Sennacherib was very successful during the first part of the campaign, but that subsequent to these successes, something happened which caused the campaign to culminate in failure. There are some scholars who agree that II K x v m 13b-16 and II K x v m 17ff. refer to different episodes of Sennacherib's campaign, but instead of assuming that the latter is a sequel to the former, they assume that the f o r m e r is a sequel to the latter. 2 ' Mention has already been made of the difficulty of explaining the demand of Sennacherib f o r the surrender of Jerusalem, a f t e r he had agreed to accept tribute f r o m Hezekiah. Those scholars who reverse the order of the two accounts escape this difficulty. They assume that after Sennacherib's success in the Maritime Plain, he tried to capture Jerusalem, and that while he was besieging Jerusalem, he devastated the entire country of Judea. Before he was able to obtain the coveted prize, however, he found himself, f o r one reason or another,"' in a position where it was not possible f o r him to continue the siege. Consequently, he agreed to accept tribute and to raise the siege of the city (something which he would not have done had he been a free a g e n t ) . Accordingly, Sennacherib's campaign may be regarded as a failure, to the extent that he did not carry out one of his objectives, and a success f r o m the point of view of his having punished severely all the rebels (including Hezekiah I, and of his having taught them in the charac-

42

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

teristic drastic Assyrian manner that it does not pay to attempt to throw off the Assyrian yoke. There is a third group of scholars, who agree with the first, that it is not possible to reconcile II K xvm 13b-16 and II K xvm 17ff., but who find in II K xvm 17ff. evidence that it is based on authentic historic sources. Consequently, they conclude that the two accounts do not refer to the same events, and advocate the hypothesis that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib—one in 701, which was in every way successful and which is described in II K xvm 13b-16 and the Assyrian annals: and another in the latter part of Sennacherib's reign, which was a complete failure. 26 This second campaign they believe to be described in II K X V I I I 17ff., Isaiah xxxvi 2ff.,27 Herodotus II 141. They believe that there is no Assyrian counterpart to these records.28 In view of the fact that the scholars in each group disagree among themselves concerning important aspects of the theory which they advocate, because of differences in their conclusions concerning some of the problem« presented by II K xvm 17ff. (I xxxvi 2ff.), it is necessary to defer further discussion of these theories until an analysis of II K xvm 17ff. shall have been made. 2.

II K X V I I I 1 7 — X I X 3 7 ; Isaiah X X X V I 2 — X X X V I I 36. (II K X V I I I 1 3 ? ; I X X X V I 1 ? ) .

PROBLEM

I . — W h a t is the character of the source or sources from which II K XVIII 1 I f f . and the corresponding version in the book of Isaiah have been derived?

It is not possible to give a definite answer to this question.

There

is a wide range of possibilities. The traditional view has for a long time been that Isaiah was the author of C H . x x x v i - x x x i x . 2 * and that the editor of the Book of Kings embodied this Isianic narrative into his own, in order to elaborate his account of Hezekiah's reign.30 If this view is correct, then the source value of these chapters (and the corresponding chapters in Kings) is very great, because they are assumed to be written not only by a contemporary, 31 but by one who played an important role in the events described and was familiar with all the details of the situation. There is no evidence, however, to substantiate the assump-

A Critical

Source

Study

43

tion that Isaiah was the author o f CH. XXXVI-XXXIX.12

P r i o r to the

c r i t i c a l analysis of B i b l i c a l Literature, it may have been natural to assume that all chapters of the B o o k of Isaiah were written by Isaiah. O u r present knowledge of the process, whereby the B o o k of Isaiah was edited and re-edited, although necessarily hypothetical in character, is based on a sufficiently c a r e f u l scrutiny of the text and on sufficiently well accepted p r i n c i p l e s o f literary criticism to make such a naive assumption untenable. I f we assume that the B i b l i c a l account ( I I K x v m 17fF.) is not a p r i m a r y account, it is important to discover the original f r o m which it is derived.

source

T h e r e are some scholars who believe that

the original account was written shortly after the events described, by a c o n t e m p o r a r y , perhaps by Isaiah himself.

I f so, the authen-

ticity o f the B i b l i c a l text depends upon the degree of correspondence existing between the B i b l i c a l text and the original account.

Those

scholars who believe that the K i n g s and I s i a n i c rescensions were derived independently, must necessarily assume that the writers of both rescensions adhered f a i t h f u l l y to the text upon which they are based, because otherwise it would not be possible to account f o r the close correspondence

existing between the two rescensions.

If

one

re-

scension, however, was based on the original document, and the other derived f r o m the first (either K i n g s f r o m Isaiah, or vice v e r s a ) , it is not possible to determine the authenticity of the B i b l i c a l

account,

because it depends upon the freedom with which the original account was used by the writer of the first rescension, and there is no way o f ascertaining the degree o f that freedom.

S i m i l a r l y , i f the two re-

scensions were derived independently, but not directly f r o m the original account, the historicity of the B i b l i c a l rescensions is uncertain, because it is possible to suspect that the intermediate rescension contained deviations f r o m the o r i g i n a l — e i t h e r unconscious inaccuracies, or the deliberate inclusion o f new material legendary in c h a r a c t e r — the accumulated results of the sins, conscious and unconscious, committed by writers o f e a r l i e r rescensions. 3 3 T h e r e are other scholars who believe that the original

account

f r o m which the B i b l i c a l rescensions are derived was a late unhistorical c o m p o s i t i o n .

A c c o r d i n g l y , it f o l l o w s that the B i b l i c a l

ac-

count, which is based on it, is not h i s t o r i c a l l y trustworthy. Some

scholars

question

the

premise that the

original

was

an

44

Sennacherib's

historic

document.

They

(Isaiah x x x v i — x x x i x )

Invasion believe

of

Palestine

that

II

K

xvni

17—xx

is either an excerpt from a biography

Isaiah or an adaptation of a part of such a biography.

19 of

The assump-

tion that biographies of prophets were in vogue is a theory which is generally accepted.

In the case of Isaiah, this theory is supported

by the presence in the book of Isaiah of other biographic material dealing with different stages of his career. 34

I f we accept this hy-

pothesis, then the historic value of the Biblical account which we are examining depends upon the date of composition, the authenticity of the sources used by Isaiah's biographer, and the freedom with which he used them. There are some scholars, who believe that the biography of Isaiah must have been a late legendary work similar in character to the biographies of E l i j a h and Elisha, from which the stories concerning these prophets contained in our present book of Kings are derived. There are other scholars who believe that the biography may have been prepared by a disciple of Isaiah, who was a contemporary and f a m i l i a r with the events described.

Other scholars differentiate

between CHS. VII and x x on the one hand, and CHS. XXXVI—xxxix on the other. 35

In the former, they see a representation of the historic

Isaiah, and in the latter they see embodied a conception of the prophet, which could have developed only long after the true historic personality had been forgotten. dicate that Isaiah kept memoirs.

CH. VI and VIII seem to in-

It is very possible that CH. VII is

based on excerpts from these autobiographic memoirs, which have been modified and recast by an editor, who wished to present the interview between Ahaz and Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis in historic setting.

CH. XX, too, they believe to be a biographic

chapter based on the memoirs, or else taken from a biography which was prepared on the basis of Isaiah's memoirs.

Meinhold agrees

with this view, but instead of assuming that the whole of the historic appendix tiates

( I . XXXVI-XXXIX) was based on a late work, he differen-

between x x x v i 2—XXXVII 8

appendix.

and

the

rest

of

the

historic

He believes that the former is derived from an authentic

reliable source, and the latter from a late legendary work, whose author conceived Isaiah as an omniscient miracle worker, and lacked insight into the true character of the prophet Isaiah. us to our next problem.

T h i s brings

A Critical PROBLEM

I I — I s II K XVIII

Source

45

Study

1 7 — X I X 37 (Isaiah

XXXVI

2

-

XXXVII 3 8 ) derived from one source, or is it a composite derived from many sources? There is considerable difference of opinion in regard to this question. There are a few scholars who believe that II K xvm 17-XIX 37 is a continuous uniform account of Sennacherib's invasion. 86 There are others who believe that II K XVIII 17-xix 37 contains two parallel 37 accounts of the same event, and there are still others who go even further and maintain that this portion contains two accounts of independent distinct events. The chief reasons for suspecting that II K xvm 17-XIX-37 is of diversified origin are: 38 1 : It is hard to understand how Sennacherib could have expected to persuade the Jews to surrender Jerusalem by means of a letter," when his personal ambassadors had failed to do so by means of a display of force. 40 2 : The prophecies of Isaiah upon the receipt of Sennacherib's letter do not correspond with his former prophecy, which he delivered at the time that Rabshakeh had come with his insolent demands." The prophecies, it is true, do not contradict one another; nevertheless, they do not give the impression that they were delivered within a short period of time, one after the other. Moreover, the absence of all reference in the supposedly later prophecies to the earlier one is very unnatural. 3 : Although it is not explicitly stated, there is a definite implication that as a result of Isaiah's first prophecy, Hezekiah had become reassured and had regained sufficient courage to refuse Rabshakeh's demands for the surrender of Jerusalem. Why, under such circumstances, should Sennacherib's letter have agiin frightened Hezekiah and again left him panic stricken? 4 : The sequence of events in the first part of the story is so similar to the sequence in the second part, that there is room for the suspicion that II K xvm 17—xix 37 does not represent one story of two series of events, but a duplicate version of one series of events. a : Sennacherib sends an

J em^assy j

t0

demand the surrender of

46

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

Jerusalem. II K x v m 17

:

II K xix 9

I xxxvi 2

:

I xxxvn 9

b : T h e Assyrians present an a r g u m e n t calculated to convince the J u d e a n s that there is no hope of their preventing the fall of J e r u s a l e m . II K x v m 19-25, 29-35 I xxxvi 4-10, 14-20

: :

II K xix 10-13 I x x x v n 10-13

c : Hezekiah becomes panic stricken.

d:

II K xix 1

:

II K xix 14-19 ( I m p l i e d in Heze-

I xxxvn 1

:

I x x x v n 14-20

kiah's prayer.)

Hezekiah seeks Divine intercession: II K xix 2-5 I x x x v n 2-5

: :

II K xix 14-19 I x x x v n 14-20

(Isaiah is asked to serve as an i n t e r m e d i a r y . )

(Hezekiah a p p e a l s to God directly.)

e : Isaiah gives a reassuring P r o p h e c y . II K xix 6, 7 I x x x v n 6, 7

: :

II K xix (20-31) ; 32-34. I x x x v n ( 2 1 - 3 2 ) ; 33-35.

f : The Crisis e n d s — I s a i a h ' s P r o p h e c y is confirmed. II K xix 9a 42 ; 36-37" II K xix 35 I x x x v n 9 a ; 37-38 I x x x v n 36 Scholars who believe that II K x v m 17-xix 37 is composed of two elements, either p a r a l l e l versions of the same story or else accounts of two different events, do not agree a m o n g themselves conc e r n i n g the m a n n e r of dividing the Biblical text. Some f o l l o w S t a d e " a n d end the first account in the m i d d l e of verse 9, a n d start the second account with 9b. Others draw the line of division at the end of v.8.' 5 T h e r e is also a difference of opinion in regard to II K xix 36f. Since these verses represent a f u l f i l l m e n t of the second p a r t of the p r o p h e c y contained in v.7, a n d f o r m a fitting conclusion to the first account, a n d since the completeness of the second account is not i m p a i r e d if these verses a r e omitted, there are m a n y scholars who are inclined to regard these verses as part of the first

A Critical

Source

Study

47

account. There are many scholars, however, who are not ready to concur with this view. It will be shown subsequently that those who believe that there were two campaigns assume that the reference to Tirhakah's advance is to an episode of the second campaign rather than the first. Consequently, if 9a belongs to the first account, this account must be regarded as a source for the second campaign rather than for the first, whereas, if 9a should be assigned to the second account, then it is possible to ascribe the first account to the first campaign and to limit the description of the second campaign to II K xix 9ff. Similarly, f o r those who argue that vv. 36 and 37 imply that the death of Sennacherib took place shortly after the events described in the document of which they are a part, and therefore tend to interpret that document as referring to a second campaign, it is an important matter whether the first or the second account is to be regarded as the document in question. There is one more element that we need to consider—the second prophecy of Isaiah (II K xix 21-31, I xxxvn 22-32). Most scholars (those who regard II K x v m 17-xix 37 as a composite as well as those who do not) agree that II K xix 21-31 seems to be a separate element. This fact was emphatically indicated by Stade in his famous analysis (1886). In support of his contention, Stade presents f o u r arguments. In the first place, he believes that the poetic f o r m of this prophecy indicates that it is not a natural continuation of II K xix 20. In the second place, the prophecy in I I K xix 32-34 is out of place after the granting of the sign (vv.29ff.). In the third place, the prophecy seems to imply that Sennacherib's message had been transmitted to Sennacherib orally, while in accordance with II K xix 14, it had been transmitted by means of a letter. Finally, Stade does not believe that this oracle is Isianic. He interprets v.24 to imply a conquest of Egypt. During Sennacherib's reign no Assyrian army had come to Egypt; consequently, if his interpretation is correct, this oracle could not have been delivered earlier than 671, when Essarbaddon's conquest of Egypt took place." Moreover, Stade assumes that the theological views expressed in this oracle are more in the spirit of Deutero Isaiah, than of Isaiah the son of Amoz, who lived in the Eighth Cen-

43

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

tury B . C. E .

T h e r e are many scholars who disagree with the last

contention of Stade, J ' but who accept the other three. F o r the sake of greater convenience in the rest of this study, the various elements of which I I K X V I I I 1 3 — X I X 37 is supposed to be composed, will be designated by the letters A, B, C, D in the following manner: 1:

II K xvm 1 3 ? (I xxxvi 1 ? )

I I K XVIII 1 4 - 1 6

2:

I I K XVIII 1 3 ? ( I x x x v i 1 ? )

II K x v m

A

17—

XIX 8 ( I x x x v i 2—XXXVII 8 )

II K

XVIII

9 a ? ( I XXXVII 9 a ? ) I I K x i x 3 6 - 3 7 ?

(I xxxvii 3 7 - 3 8 ? i 3:

I I K x i x 9 a ? ( I .vX.wu Oa?,i

II K xix

%-20

( I XXXVII 9 b - 2 1 )

I

II K xix 32-35 (I xxxvn-33-36) II K x;x 3 6 - 3 7 ?

]

( I XXXVII 37-38?,I 4:

II K xix 21b48—31

(I xxxvii 2 2 b — 3 2 )

C

D

II K x v m 13 ( I x x x v i 1 l will be regarded as part of A or B n accordance with the view presented. L.^-37 ( I x x x v i i 9a, 3 7 - 3 8 )

Similarly

II

K xix

9a,

will be regarded as part of B or C in

accordance with the view presented.

is the Source Value oj II K XVIII XIX 3 1 (BC) ?

17—

indicated,

both

PROBLEM I I I . — W h a t

As

has already

been

some

B and C as trustworthy and authentic.

scholars

recognize

T h e y do not admit

that

there is any conflict between BC and A, or between B C and the annals.

T h e y believe that B C and A represent different stages of

the same campaign.

T h e silence of the Assyrian annals concerning

that part of the campaign which is described in B C they interpret as a deliberate attempt on the part of the annalist to cover up the ultimate failure of the Assyrian enterprise by describing the early part of the campaign, in which S e n n a c h e r i b met with

temporary

success, as if it were the whole. It has also been pointed

out, that some scholars believe

that

between A and the Assyrian annals on the one hand, and B C on the

A Critical

Source

Study

49

other, there is an irreconcilable disparity. In accordance with the former, Sennacherib's campaign was a successful one, and as a result of it, Judah was left in a terribly devastated condition; and although Hezekiah was allowed to remain on his throne, the greater part of the kingdom had been taken away from him and added to the petty Philistine kingdoms of Ekron, Ashkelon and Gaza.48 In accordance with the latter, Sennacherib's campaign was a tremendous failure; his army was completely destroyed (by a plague), and he himself was compelled to return to Assyria, without having accomplished the object of his expedition—Zion had proved to be invincible. Consequently, these scholars conclude that A and the account of the campaign in the Assyrian inscriptions are authentic sources, and that BC is a lengendary tale which possesses no historic value. The chief difficulty with the above assumption is that it is difficult to believe that a legend of the nature of BC would evolve without a basis in historic fact. An insignificant victory might be embellished through legend and eventually be recorded in history as a magnificent victory, but an overwhelming defeat such as is implied in the Assyrian description of Hezekiah's humiliation, can hardly™ become modified through a legend in such a manner as to be regarded as a triumph culminating in the complete destruction of the Assyrian army. Other scholars, starting out with the assumption that it is impossible to harmonize BC with A or the Assyrian annals, but believing that it is impossible for a legend to develop ex nihilo, conclude that B and C represent authentic accounts of actual historic occurrences, but not of occurrences that took place during the campaign that is described in A or in the Assyrian annals. Consequently, they assume a second campaign during the latter part of Hezekiah's reign. It is also possible to differentiate between B and C—to accept the former as authentic and to deny historicity to the latter. It has been suggested above that there is reason to believe that B and C are parallel versions of the same story. If so, the former may be an account prepared on the basis of bona fide sources, and the latter represent a legendary embellishment of the former. The historicity of B can be defended on the following grounds: 1. B contains no supernatural elements. Isaiah's prophecy that Sennacherib would return to Assyria without attaining his

50

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

specific objective (Jerusalem) may be explained as an expression of confidence on his part in the inviolability of Zion, and of his supreme faith that Sennacherib's plans would be frustrated by Divine intervention. Furthermore, it is not an unnatural assumption to make, that Isaiah was conscious of unrest in Babylonia (or of Egyptian preparations to send a second army into Palestine, or of both). Accordingly, if Isaiah believed that Sennacherib would not succeed in capturing Jerusalem, he would very naturally have assumed that it was the Divine plan that rumors of this unrest in Babylonia (or of the Egyptian advance, or of both simultaneously) should reach Sennacherib, in time to compel him to raise the siege of the city and to make a hurried retreat to Assyria. The specific prediction in 7b61 is not as easy to rationalize, particularly since this prediction conforms so accurately to the actual historic occurrence. The simplest way of escaping the difficulty presented by 7b to those who believe that there is no attempt in B to picture Isaiah as omniscient, is to assume that 7b was not part of the original prophecy, but that it is a gloss influenced by the circumstances of Sennacherib's death. Another difficulty presented by this prophecy of Isaiah is that it does not harmonize with Is. XIV 2552 and other passages in Isaiah of similar import. This difficulty does not exist for those scholars who assume that B describes Sennacherib's first campaign, and that the antiAssyrian oracles in the book of Isaiah were delivered during the supposed second campaign. 2. B contains a number of very definite and specific references, which are presumably accurate. (a) II K x v i i i 17 implies that Sennacherib's headquarters were at Lachish. This fact seems to be confirmed by the Assyrian bas-relief and by the reference in A to Lachish, as the place to which Hezekiah sent his ambassadors to proffer his submission. If the Lachish bas-relief refers to the capture of Lachish during the first campaign, it is hard to account for Sennacherib's failure to mention Lachish amongst the cities captured, if he considered the event important enough to have a bas-relief made. Those scholars, who believe that B is a description of a second campaign of Sennacherib in Palestine,

A Critical

Source

Study

51

can assume that the bas-relief was made during the second campaign. Accordingly, the reference to Lachish in v.14 must be assumed to be a gloss influenced by the reference to Lachish in v.17. ( b ) The Judeans appointed to negotiate with the Assyrian ambassadors are mentioned by name. Two of the three names mentioned are confirmed by Isaiah x x n 15-25. In that oracle, Shebna occupies the position attributed to Eliakim in II K XVIII 18 and Isaiah is anticipating Shebna's demotion and Eliakim's promotion. If these two men represented opposing parties, and if Shebna's removal from the Prime-ministry implied that his party had been discredited, his continuing in office in a subordinate position, during the administration of his rival, seems strange—yet it was by no means impossible, as is indicated by numerous historical analogies. ( c ) The definiteness of the allusions in xix 8 also seem to indicate that the writer of B had access to sources containing very specific information. 63 The historicity of B has been questioned on account of the reference to Tirhakah ( 9 a ) . Those scholars, who believe that 9a is not a part of B, are not concerned with this problem, when investigating the historicity of B. Those scholars, who believe that B refers to a second campaign by Sennacherib and not to his first are not at all troubled by the allusion to Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia. On the contrary, they can argue that the specific reference is another indication that the writer of B had before him authentic sources. But, even those scholars who believe that B refers to the first campaign and who regard 9a as a part of B, are not very much troubled by this reference, because from our knowledge of Egyptian history, we know that it would have been possible for Tirhakah to head an Egyptian army during the reign of his uncle, Shabaka. The fact that Tirhakah is referred to as King of Ethiopia, although he did not receive the title until about thirteen years later, is not strange. It would have been very natural for a writer living during or after the period when Tirhakah was King of Ethiopia to ascribe the title to him, even when referring to an event that had taken place before his accession to the throne. 54

52

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

A m o r e serious basis f o r questioning the historicity of B is f u r n i s h e d by R a b s h a k e h ' s addresses. M a n y scholars a r e inclined to question the genuineness of the speeches attributed to R a b s h a k e h . If B is an accurate a n d authentic source, then R a b s h a k e h ' s speeches must be genuine or else based on a n accurate description of the original, yet there are elements which seem to be d o u b t f u l . F o r the sake of greater clarity, I will analyze the speech a n d p o i n t the elements which seem to indicate genuiness a n d the elements which arouse suspicion. v.19. T h e reference to S e n n a c h e r i b as the great King, the K i n g of Assyria, s o u n d s very genuine. If the speech was composed by a Hebrew writer, he must have been f a m i l i a r with the Assyrian f o r m s of address. v.20, 21. T h e p h r a s e n m m i n HJpH TOWD is very suspicious (Cf. Ez. xxix 6). 6 5 T h e similarity with I s a i a h ' s similes is also striking. T h e a r g u m e n t , however, is a very n a t u r a l one f o r the Assyrian a m b a s s a d o r to have used, f o r he was p r o b a b l y a w a r e that the m a i n cause that h a d i n s p i r e d the P a l e s t i n i a n s to rebellion was the h o p e of assistance f r o m Egypt. On the other hand, it w o u l d have been very t e m p t i n g f o r a Hebrew writer f a m i l i a r with I s a i a h ' s anti-Egyptian p r o p h e c i e s to attribute this a r g u m e n t to the Assyrian. v.22. This verse has been a bone of contention f o r a l o n g time. Those who doubt the historicity of the description of Hezekiah's reforms 5 " or who assume that Hezekiah's r e f o r m s took place a f t e r 701 57 can not believe that R a b s h a k e h m a d e such a statement in 701. On the other hand, if the r e f o r m s h a d taken place, a n d if an Assyrian h a d learned about them, it w o u l d have been n a t u r a l f o r him to a r g u e in this m a n n e r . If the r e f o r m s h a d not taken place, a n d consequently this a r g u m e n t was not p a r t of the original speech, the Hebrew composer must be credited with a very vivid i m a g i n a t i o n to have so accurately p o r t r a y e d how an Assyrian w o u l d have behaved u n d e r such circumstances. T h e r e can be no doubt, that the Assyrian would have been quick to perceive the reaction of the p e o p l e to a decree calling f o r the discontinuance of religious institutions, hallowed by centuries of use, and would have p l a y e d u p o n

A Critical

Source

Study

53

their religious sentiments, in order to further his own ends.6* v.23, 24. This sounds very genuine. It is interesting to compare Isaiah's taunts in regard to Judah's weakness in cavalry and its dependence on Egypt for the same.™ v.25. Could Rabshakeh have said this? It is very doubtful It was possible for Isaiah to have regarded Assyria as the "rod of His anger," but it is not likely that the Assyrian could have conceived himself as having been sent by the God of Judah." [v.26, 27.] 81 The anxiety of the Hebrew ambassadors to use a language which the people on the wall should not understand is too vividly portrayed to be regarded as imaginative. Nevertheless, the historicity of these verses has been questioned. Some scholars have taken for granted that Aramaic had not become the language of intercommunication in Western Asia as early as the 8th century; but, during the German excavations at Assur, there was found an Aramaic inscription which was written in the 8th century B.C.E. 02 This inscription proves that the process which culminated in the complete Aramaization of Western Asia had its beginnings as early as the 8th century B.C.E., and therefore removes the ground for suspicion that v.26 is an anachronism. Another ground for the assumption that vv.26 and 27 were written at a late date is the fact that the language of Judah is referred to as nmn* Some scholars believe that it would not have been natural for the language of the people of Judah to be designated as TVTirr twenty years after the destruction of Samaria. They therefore infer that this passage must have been written at a late date. It is not necessary to draw this inference, because the assumption upon which it is based is not warranted—the language of Judah might have been called j v j i r p even while the Northern Kingdom was still in existence. [v.28.] The attempt to incite the people against their King sounds very genuine. If imaginative, the writer must have been very familiar with Assyrian policies, methods and customs. v.29-32. The threat of deportation, even when toned down by holding out the land to which they would be deported as a land of promise, sounds very unnatural 63 in an attempt to win over to himself the loyalty of the people.

54

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

v.33-35. This is the argument which we would naturally expect from an Assyrian; but if the speech has not been reconstructed by a later writer, if it is a reproduction of the actual speech given by Rabshakeh, the references to cities conquered as far back as 7 4 0 appear strange. A reference to Sargon's conquests would have been much more natural—or else, the argument might have centered around the two important Kingdoms of Damascus and Samaria. The most effective argument for the Assyrian to have used, would have been the destruction of S a m a r i a ; for the Assyrians probably knew that the two kingdoms worshipped the same God, and from the Assyrian point of view, it would have been a very logical inference that just as the God of the Hebrews was unable to save Samaria, so He would be unable to save Jerusalem. 8 1 v.36. If this speech was not based on authentic sources, but is the product of the imagination of a Hebrew writer, then the writer must have been a truly great artist." From the above analysis, it appears that the addresses in their present form may contain elements which were not present in the original, but that these addresses are not entirely imaginary, that they are based on speeches actually delivered under historic circumstances similar to those described. The simplest way of accounting for the present form of these addresses is to assume that the writer of B elaborated a summary of the original (which may have come down to him orally, or in a written document) and that to this elaboration were added the further elaborations of later writers. The historicity of C has been impugned on the following grounds: 1.

The parallelism

between

C and, B.

2. Many scholars believe that the prayer of Hezekiah contains conceptions which reflect a much later age than that of Hezekiah. The historicity of this prayer has also been questioned, because of the allusion in v.17 to an Assyrian practice of burning the gods of conquered peoples. In none of the Assyrian inscription is there any reference to such an act. If it is true that the Assyrians were never guilty of burning gods, could a contemporary have assumed that they had? Is it not much more natural to attribute such an assumption to a later writer, whose knowledge of Assyrian custom and

A Critical

Source

Study

practice was not based on personal experience?

55 Even if we grant

this contention, it is not necessary to admit that they prove that C is a later composition.

We may assume that C originally contained

a statement that Hezekiah prayed, and that the actual prayer was not given, and that vv.l5b-19 represent the elaboration of a later writer. 3.

The omniscience

of Isaiah.

In B a delegation is sent to Isaiah

to inform him concerning the insolent message of Sennacherib.

In

C Isaiah seems to know what happened without being informed. V.20 seems to imply that Isaiah became aware of the situation through God, who heard Hezekiah's prayer.

(I deliberately used the

word seems, because it does not necessarily imply that.)

Isaiah may

have been informed concerning the letter and its contents, as well as of Hezekiah's action subsequent to the receipt of the letter.

It may

be assumed that v.20a was intended to imply nothing more than that Isaiah took the initiative and delivered his message to Hezekiah before the latter consulted him, and that the rest of the verse represents the actual language employed by Isaiah. 4.

The story of the plague is contradictory and exaggerated.

There are some scholars, who doubt the entire story concerning the plague.

They believe that it is a legend of late origin.

If this is

so, then there is no doubt that C is an unreliable tale of little or no historic worth.

But how can this assumption be established?

Do

not most scholars arrive at this conclusion through an opposite process?

They start out with the assumption that C is unreliable,

and therefore conclude that the story of the plague is unhistorical. We are confronted once more with a vicious circle. A very valid reason, for assuming that the story of the plague has a true historic basis, is the fact that independently, Herodotus records ( I I 141) an Egyptian story of a sudden catastrophe befalling Sennacherib's army.

The Egyptian story contains many legendary

elements and inaccuracies.

It also differs from the Hebrew story

in several respects—but the similarity between Herodotus II 141 and C is too striking not to make tempting the assumption that one confirms the historicity of the other.

Whether or not we are war-

ranted in making this assumption is the crux of our problem.

It is

therefore worth while to stop for a moment to examine the account in Herodotus.

56

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

"After him reigned the priest of Vulcan, whose name was Sethon. He held in no account and despised the military caste of the Egyptians, as not having need of their services; and accordingly, among other indignities, he took away their lands, to each of whom, under former kings, twelve chosen acres had been assigned. After this, Sennacherib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched a large army against Egypt; whereupon the Egyptian warriors refused to assist him; and the priest, being reduced to a strait, entered the temple and bewailed before the image the calamities he was in danger of suffering. While he was lamenting, sleep fell upon him, and it appeared to him in a vision that the god stood by and encouraged him, assuring him that he should suffer nothing disagreeable in meeting the Arabian army, for he would himself send assistants to him. Confiding in this vision, he took with him such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusium, for here the entrance into Egypt is; but none of the military caste followed him, but tradesmen, mechanics, and sutlers. When they arrived there, a number of field-mice, pouring in upon their enemies, devoured their quivers and their bows, and, moreover the handles of their shields; so that, on the next day, when they fled bereft of their arms, many of them f e l l ; and to this day a stone statue of this king stands in the temple of Vulcan, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to the following effect: 'Whoever looks on me, let him revere the gods.' " (Herodotus II 141, translated by H. Cary.) The following elements in the above account are worthy of note. 1 : The clash between Sennacherib and Egypt took place during an invasion of Egypt. 2 : Sennacherib is referred to as King of the Arabians and Assyrians. 3 : The name given for the king of Egypt is Sethon. 4 : The king of Egypt did not have the backing of the army, and would not have had the courage to meet Sennacherib if not for the encouragement of the gods. 5 : The two armies met at Pelusium. 6 : Before the battle took place, Sennacherib's army was beset by field-mice, who destroyed the Assyrian quivers, bows, and handles of the shields. Because of this calamity, the Assyrian soldiers were no match for the Egyptians and were badly routed. 8 : In honor

A Critical

Source

Study

57

of this event, there was placed in the temple of Vulcan (Hephaestus) a statue of the King with a mouse in his hand. Element 1. There is no mention of an attempted invasion of Egypt on the part of Sennacherib, either in Sennacherib's annals or in the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not indicate that the account in Herodotus has no historic basis. The omission in the Hebrew account can easily be understood. The Hebrew scribe, in all probability sincerely believed that the catastrophe which befell Sennacherib (regardless of the place of its occurrence) was the work of his God, Who was interested in thwarting Sennacherib in his attempt to capture Jerusalem. Accordingly, from the point of view of the Hebrew writer, Sennacherib's advance toward Egypt had nothing to do with the matter, and consequently was no concern of his. If this advance to Egypt was a part of the campaign of 701, the silence of the Assyrian annals concerning this venture can only be explained as a deliberate attempt on the part of the annalist to represent an unsuccessful campaign as successful by describing in detail, those parts of the campaign which were attended by success, and omitting all reference to those enterprises which had an unsuccessful outcome. I f this attempted invasion of Egypt was part of the same campaign that is referred to in the fragment describing Sennacherib's defeat of the Arabic queen, then, the silence of the Assyrian inscriptions is not at all surprising. Element 2. Herodotus' reference to Sennacherib as " K i n g of the Arabians and Assyrians," and to his army as " A r a b i a n " has been regarded by some scholars as proof that Herodotus II 141 is derived from inaccurate, unreliable, legendary sources. If, as some scholars believe, the invasion described by Herodotus was an outgrowth of a successful campaign in Arabia, and if. Sennacherib had been acknowledged as King by a number of Arabian tribes—and if this army contained a large Arabian contingent, Herodotus' inaccuracies are explicable. Those scholars, who do not accept the hypothesis of a second campaign in the West, can not accept this explanation. On the other hand, the scholars who do advocate this hypothesis can regard Herodotus' inaccurate designations as confirmations of their theory. Those scholars, who believe that there was only one campaign of Sennacherib in Palestine, and who consequently assume that the story told by Herodotus refers to the campaign of 701, must

58

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

conclude that no significance is to be attached to Herodotus' error in referring to Sennacherib as King of the Arabians and Assyrians. It is merely to be taken as an indication that in Herodotus' age, the memory of Sennacherib was already vague and inaccurate. Element

3.

The name of the King of Egypt is another indication

that the story in its present form is encrusted with legendary material. Most scholars believe that the name of the king had become lost and that legend had associated the events with the famous Seti I (14th century B . C . E . ) .

Hall 88 explains Herodotus' error by the

assumption that Tirhakah's name was confused with that of Sethos because Tirhakah's name is given by Manetho as "Zet."

Hall

believes that the confusion of " Z e t " with Sethos was more natural because of the legendary connection of Sethos' Palestinian wars with Pelusium. If Hall s hypothesis is correct, then the name of the king is another indication that this account refers to an invasion which topk place during the latter part of Sennacherib's reign and not to the invasion of 701. Element

5.

Those who believe that Herodotus and C describe the

same event must harmonize the implication of the latter, that the catastrophe took place in Palestine during an invasion of Palestine and the explicit statement of the former, that the catastrophe took place at Pelusium, during an invasion of Egypt.

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 . . . " not state where that camp was situated.

It does

There is no reason for

assuming that it was outside of the walls of 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." Element

6.

Scholars agree that I I K xix 35 implies a pestilence." 7

Most scholars believe that the story of the mice told by Herodotus also implies a plague.

Consequently, it is generally accepted that

C and Herodotus I I 141 represent the Hebrew and Egyptian versions of the same event.

Since it can not be suspected that one was derived

from or influenced by the other, the correspondence between the two

A Critical

Source

Study

59

is usually regarded as proof of the historicity of both accounts. It is important to keep in mind, however, that there is no mention of a plague in Herodotus II 141—that the assumption that a plague is implied is based on the identification of the mouse as a symbol of plague, and that this identification is hypothetical. Why is it usually assumed that the mouse is the symbol of plague? One of the great scourges of the Biblical World was the Bubonic Plague. It is possible that the ancients recognized that the mouse was the carrier of this terrible disease. There are Egyptologists, who believe that the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for pestilence and destruction was the mouse. This belief, however, is not shared by all Egyptologists. Those scholars, who believe that the mouse was generally accepted by the ancients as a symbol of pestilence, can present I S vi 4, 5 in support of their contention. The emerods and images of the mice are interpreted by many scholars as parallel symbols, both symbolic of the same thing—pestilence. This view is supported by I S v 6 where emerods alone are mentioned. On the other hand, I S vi 5, when interpreted naturally, implies a double scourge, and there is no reason why n x n nx D ' n w o n n n n s i y should not be taken literally instead of symbolically. There are many scholars, who believe that the mouse was a Greek symbol for plague. This belief is based on the fact that Apollo, when referred to in his capacity of "God of Pestilence" is given the epithet "Smintheus" ("god of mice," "destroyer of m i c e " ) . What is more, there are several instances in Greek literature, when pestilence seems to be associated with mice. Prima facie, there seems to be sufficient evidence to prove the theory that the mouse was a Greek symbol for plague. Meinhold, however, denies this theory, and presents a convincing argument to the contrary. 68 Even if we assume that Meinhold is not correct, and if we grant that the mouse was a Greek symbol for pestilence, to interpret Herodotus' story of the mice as a story of a plague on the strength of this fact, is to imply that this story has not only been given Greek coloring, but has been recast entirely in a Greek mold. If so, the historicity of the story becomes very questionable. The above analysis indicates that the best substantiation of the assumption that C and Herodotus II 141 correspond, that they both

60

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

tell of a terrible plague, which broke forth in the Assyrian army and frustrated the Assyrian designs, is the theory that the mouse was an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for pestilence. The correctness of this theory is a question for Egyptologists to decide. 6 and 8. There are several Greek legends of a deliverance resulting from the nibbling by mice of the enemies' weapons. The parallelism between these legends and Herodotus II 141 is too close to be co-incidental. Consequently, there are many scholars, who doubt the historicity of Herodotus' tale. They believe, that whatever the story may have been that Herodotus heard from the Egyptian priests, he recast it completely in the mold of the Greek legend. If so, is it possible to discover the historic kernel, which this legend conceals? If C is historical, and a sudden pestilence broke forth in the Assyrian army, might not the story of the pestilence have recalled in Herodotus' mind, the old Greek tale concerning the mice? Such an assumption would appeal to those scholars who believe that the mouse was a Greek symbol for plague. The story of the statue allows a different assumption. It is possible that the statue which Herodotus saw, was not the statue of a King, as Herodotus mistakingly supposed, but that of the god Horus. If the Egyptians enjoyed an unexpected deliverance, it would have been natural for them to attribute it to the god Horus and to set up a statue in his honor. A mouse might have been put into the hand of the god, not because the mouse had any relation to the cause of the deliverance, but because the mouse was sacred to Horus. It would have been natural for Herodotus, upon seeing the statue, to assume that the mouse had symbolic significance, specifically related to the occasion which called for the making of that statue, and in the absence of definite information, to assume that there must have been an occurrence similar to that described in the old Greek tale. A more simple supposition might be made, that Herodotus, upon seeing the statue, was reminded of the passage in Homer,*8 where Apollo Smintheus is pictured as having a mouse in his hand, and by natural association, was reminded of the old Greek tale. These views give us no clue in regard to the true nature of the deliverance. It may have been caused by a sudden unexpected retreat upon the part of the Assyrians, due to unrest in Babylonia.™ This interpretation will naturally be favored by those who accept the historicity of B and

A Critical

Source

Study

61

not of C. The chief objections to this interpretation are that it is not likely that the Egyptian priests, in the time of Herodotus, would have mistaken a statue of Horus for that of a King. Moreover, if there is no other reason for the mouse in the hand than that the mouse is sacred to the god (i.e. if there is no specific relation between the mouse and the occasion in honor of which the statue was made) there should have been many such statues in Egypt. Thus far, none has been found. If, as a result of the analysis of Herodotus II 141, we favor the view that it corroborates the story of the plague in C, then we must conclude that C represents authentic history. On the other hand, if we accept the view that there is no implication of a plague in Herodotus' account, then we may conclude that Herodotus confirms B rather than C and there is room for the theory that C represents a parallel, unhistorical version of B. Those who believe that there were two campaigns, naturally associate Herodotus' account with the second; consequently, from the point of view of these scholars, to identify B with Herodotus, implies that B refers to the second campaign. It is possible to deny the historicity of C and to assume that B and Herodotus refer to the same events, and at the same time, to interpret B as a sequel to A. To ascribe Herodotus to the campaign of 701 does not present more difficulty to the advocates of this theory than it does to those who believe that A, B and C represent three stages of the campaign of 701 respectively. PROBLEM I V . What is the relation existing between B and C and A, and between B C arid A and the Assyrian Annals?

From the analysis that has been made thus far, it is clear that a definite answer can not be given to the above question. A number of hypotheses are possible." For the sake of greater clarity, I have arranged these hypotheses in accordance with the three answers given to the preceding problem.

62

SennachcrifSs

Invasion

of

. Scnnarhcrib Palestine.

Palestine

zvaged

only

one

campaign

A a n d the A s s y r i a n A n n a l s describe the first s t a g e of this c a m p a i g n . [IYPOTHESIS

II

two

HYPOTHESIS

T h e second c a m p a i g n ( a n o u t g r o w t h of a c a m p a i g n in A r a b i a ) is described b y B C. B a n d C r e p r e s e n t t w o stages of that campaign respectively. H e r o d o t u s I I 1 4 1 proba b l y r e f e r s to the second stage of this campaign. Sennacherib Palestine.

waged

two

Sennacherib Palestine. HYPOTHESIS

I^C is

V

campaigns

in

T h e first c a m p a i g n is d e s c r i b e d by A B. J A a n d B r e p r e s e n t t w o s t a g e s of t h a t camI PA'£NT h e r e is no A s s y r i a n c o u n t e r p a r t to B 7 3 j T h e second c a m p a i g n land Herodotus II 141.

is

in

III

HYPOTHESIS I V

(B

campaigns

T h e first c a m p a i g n is d e s c r i b e d in its e n t i r e t y by A ( I I K X V I I I 1 3 - 1 6 ) a n d the A s s y r i a n annals.

f I

c', l t y ' l D ' ^ I T l i O ' l l t y u missing in Isaiah II K XVIII "l^sn bx I N T P ' l missing in Isaiah, soi vii; r m i n>T p x II K X V I I I missing in Isaiah. i r v p n - - i w i j ? a s - n - ^ni m a n • mi: in Isaiah. It is ir+erestinir to note 0. I I K X V I I I 34 that in I X X X V I I 13 these are included. I X X X V I I 18 7. I I K X I X 17 C S - 1 K - - N 1 C ' l - n - f l K whereas c x - n - r u n n i s m n - bz - n x I I K X I X 20 _ missing in Isaiah. I I K X I X 35 N'mm n 1 ? ' « T V 1 missing in Isaiah. II K X X 4 abridged in Isaiah. 11. I I K X X 5 '"y* " ' 3 3 the epithet applied to Hezekiah, missing in Isaiah. 12. I I K X X abridged in Isaiah. >12y i n 1 1 W 1 '3y8^> missing in Isaiah. I f this verse 13. I I K X X is derived from I I K X I X 34 (I X X X V I I 35) it is important to note that I I K X X 6 is a more accurate reproduction than I X X X V I I I 6. I X X X V I I I 21, 22 14. I I K X X 7, 8 misplaced in the Isianic rescension. abridged. 15. I I K X X 9, 10, 11 considerably abridged in Isaiah. There is no reference in Isaiah to Hezekiah's choice as to what the sign should be. 1 6 . There is nothing in Kings to correspond to I X X X V I I I 9-20, the Psalm of Hezekiah. 17. I I K X X 13 y a t r ' l whereas I X X X I X 2 Hat^'l ' T h e most important differences in spelling, grammatical construction, and the like, are as follows: K X V I I I 13 1 SD"IÎ,ninpn

f înansn .) t-S^

69

II

I XXXVII

inns' 1>X DXIp'l

II K K XX K 30. I I K 31. I I K 32. K 33. K

28. II 29. II

to Chapter

:D'i

" i XXXVIII 2 V3B m>ptn 3D'i

ION?

maxi ni» 1N,!73 -¡1X13 " yov

,1733 1 1

H33

':

o 3 n>n> naxi

I XXXVIII 3

nax'I

I X X X V I I I 5 MAXI IIFO

I XXXIX 1 p ^ n -px-13 I xxxix i potrn i xxxix 6 ion

• i t o ' OX X^TI w h e r e a s I XXXIX 8 n t t N l D17Î? !"P PP These differences a r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t as aids in d e t e r m i n i n g the relation of the K i n g s rescension to t h e Isianic. I n fact they f u r n i s h our only basis f r o m which a n y conclusions can be d r a w n . a W h e n c o m p a r i n g t h e two rescersions, one c a n n o t limit himself to a comparison of I I K X V I I I 1 3 — X I X 37 with Isaiah X X X V I a n d X X X V I I , but m u s t also c o m p a r e I I K X X 1-19 with Isaiah X X X V I I I a n d X X X I X . Accordingly, in a d d i t i o n to the omission of I I K X V I I I 14-16 in the Isianic rescension, w e m u s t note the -»mission of Isaiah X X X V I I I 9-22 in the K i n g s rescension, and also the abridged f o r m in which t h e story of the sign I I K X X 7-11 appears in Isaiah X X X V I I I 7-8. ( I n e n u m e r a t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s in the two r e s c e n s i o n s in notes 3 a n d 4, I included a comparison of I I K X X 1-19 with Isaiah X X X V I I I and X X X I X ) . T h a t the k i n g ' s n a m e was spelled d i f f e r e n t l y in vv.14-16 t h a n vv.13 a n d 17ff. was first noted by K u e n e n (1875). K u e n e n ' s analysis has been generally accepted. I m u s t confess, however, that it is not altogether convincing to me, because the diff e r e n t i a t i o n is n o t carried t h r o u g h c o n s i s t e n t l y ; e.g., in X V I I I 1 a chronological notice, c o r r e s p o n d i n g in all probability to X V I I I 13, the king's n a m e is spelled frpTH ( T h e spelling of the k i n g ' s n a m e in vv. 9 and 10 harmonizes with K u e n e n ' s a n a l y s i s ) . 8 T h e r e is n o t h i n g in the contents of vv. 14-16 to a r o u s e suspicion; on t h e other h a n d , t h e r e a r e a n u m b e r of t h i n g s that seem to confirm t h e historicity of these verses—e. g., the r e f e r e n c e to Lachish, the f a c t that the a m o u n t of t r i b u t e is stated specifically, (in accordance with B r a n d i s , t h e r e is correspondence between t h e a m o u n t stated in v. 14 a n d that m e n t i o n e d in the A s s y r i a n annals. T h i s a s s u m p t i o n is not accepted by S a n d a , because t h e r e is no evidence to prove that the J u d e a n silver t a l e n t was equivalent to 2 2 / 3 A s s y r i a n ) and the admission that in order to meet S e n n a c h e r i b ' s exhorbitant d e m a n d s , he had to empty out both the Royal a n d T e m p l e T r e a s u r i e s . T h e r e is one question which these verses b r i n g to mind, and that is—could H e z e k i a h have raised such a large a m o u n t , even if he did empty both t r e a s u r i e s a n d strip the Temple of its o r n a m e n t s , a short time a f t e r A h a z had done the same t h i n g ? (cf. I I K X V I 8, 17, 18). T h a t J u d a h had r e g a i n e d some of its n a t u r a l wealth is implied in v. ] 6b. and X X 1 3 — ( m o s t scholars believe that t h e embassy of M e r o d a c h - B a l a d d i n must have t a k e n place some time b e f o r e t h e events described in vv. 13-16). 9 T h e basis f o r t h e latter a l t e r n a t i v e is the f a c t that t h e editor of t h e Book of Kings, when q u o t i n g his a u t h o r i t y for the i n f o r m a t i o n derived f r o m the A n n a l s , r e f e r s to it as " t h e book of t h e Chronicles of the K i n g s of J u d a h " or " t h e book of t h e Chronicles of the K i n g s of I s r a e l " or " t h e book of the Chronicles of the A c t s of Solom a n . " Some scholars, however, do not see the need of a s s u m i n g t h a t these books of 5

70

Notes to Chapter

11

C h r o n i c l e s w e r e not t h e o r i g i n a l b o o k s in w h i c h t h e o f f i c i a l r e c o r d w a s k e p t . 10cf F u l l e r t o n — T h e I n v a s i o n s o f S e n n a c h e r i b — B i b l i o t h e c a S a c r a v . 6 3 p. 5 8 7 . n I t m u s t be t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d t h a t t h e e n t r y in t h e a n n a l s w a s m a d e w i t h i n a b r i e f period after the events occurred. C o n s e q u e n t l y , i f 7 1 5 is n o t t h e c o r r e c t d a t e f o r t h e a c c e s s i o n o f H e z e k i a h , it w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e f o r a s c r i b e d e s c r i b i n g a n e v e n t t h a t t r a n s p i r e d in 7 0 1 to h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t it had t a k e n p l a c e in t h e f o u r t e e n t h y e a r of H e z e k i a h ' s reign. I wish to p o i n t o u t , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e r e a r e t w o w a y s o f a s s i g n i n g 13a. to t h e a n n a l s without accepting 715 as the correct date f o r the accession of H e z e k i a h . W . S. A u c h i n c l o s s ( S t a n d a r d C h r o n o l o g y o f t h e H e b r e w B i b l e , 1 9 1 4 p. 6 6 f . ) b e l i e v e s t h a t 7 2 7 is t h e c o r r e c t d a t e f o r H e z e k i a h ' s a c c e s s i o n , a n d at t h e s a m e t i m e a c c e p t s 1 3 a as an accurate statement. H e a s s u m e s t h a t the f i f t e e n y e a r s of H e z e k i a h ' s l i f e a f t e r his i l l n e s s ( I I K X X 6 ) w e r e r e g a r d e d as a s e c o n d t e r m o f o f f i c e , a n d t h a t a s a r e s u l t , e v e n t s that t r a n s p i r e d b e t w e e n 7 2 7 a n d 714 w e r e dated 1-14 of K i n g H e z e k i a h , a n d e v e n t s t h a t took p l a c e b e t w e e n 7 1 4 a n d 6 9 9 < 0 9 8 1 ) w e r e d a t e d 1 - 1 5 . T h e second e x p l a n a t i o n is b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t v . 1 3 a w a s o r i g i n a l l y a n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o XX 12ff. instead of X V I I I 13bff. Since Merodach-Baladdin's ambassadors must h a v e c o m e to H d z e k i a h s o m e t i m e b e f o r e S e n n a c h e r i b d r o v e h i m o u t o f Babylon, ( M e r o d a c h - B a l a d d i n , a f u g i t i v e in t h e m a r s h e s o f S o u t h e r n M e s o p o t a m i a , w a s h a r d l y i n a position t o s e n d e n r b a s s i e s ) , it is v e r y p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n o f C h . X X w a s b e f o r e X V I I I 1 3 — X I X 37 i n s t e a d o f a f t e r it. I n that case, the original i n t r o d u c t i o n s to t h e s t o r i e s in Ch. X X c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n DHn> C ' D ' S o r JOHn D i ' 2 T h e r e is, t h e r e f o r e , r o o m f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l i n t r o d u c t i o n t o X X 1 2 f f . , or p e r h a p s to both s t o r i e s c o n t a i n e d in Ch. X X , w a s 1 3 a . I f b y e r r o r , it w a s a s sumed that Hezekiah's illness, M e r o d a c h - B a l l a d i n ' s embassy and S e n n a c h e r i b ' s invasion o f P a l e s t i n e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g o n e y e a r , it w o u l d h a v e b e e n n a t u r a l to u s e 1 3 a as a n introduction to t h e story of S e n n a c h e r i b ' s invasion, a n d to i n t r o d u c e t h e o t h e r stories with the words Qnn D ' Q ^ S or t o n n respectively. T h e a b o v e h y p o t h e s i s h a r m o n i z e s with t h e v i e w t h a t M e r o d a c h - B a l l a d i n ' s e m b a s s y w a s s e n t d u r i n g h i s first r e i g n , i f we a c c e p t 7 2 7 a s t h e c o r r e c t d a t e f o r H e z e k i a h ' s accession. I f we a c c e p t 7 2 0 - 7 1 9 as t h e c o r r e c t d a t e , t h e n t h e f o u r t e e n t h y e a r i s e a r l i e r t h a n t h e y e a r in w h i c h M e r o c l a c h - B a l l a d i n ' s s e c o n d r e i g n t o o k p l a c e ; b u t it is n o t i m p o s s i b l e t o suppose t h a t M e r o d a c h - B a l l a d i n i n a u g u r a t e d his conspiracies b e f o r e he a s c e n d e d t h e t h r o n e o f B a b y l o n . 12There are three possibie dates f o r the accession of H e z e k i a h , 727, 715 a n d 720-719. T h e first is b a s e d on I I K X V I I I 9 f , t h e s e c o n d on I I K X V I I I 1 3 a , a n d t h e t h i r d is d e r i v e d b y r e c k o n i n g b a c k w a r d s f r o m t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e First Temple. Sir.ce the dates for the destruction of S a m a r i a and for S e n n a c h e r i b ' s third campaign are definitely fixed by t h e A s s y r i a n monuments as 722-721 and 701-700 r e s p e c t i v e l y , it is n o t p o s s i o l e to a s s u m e t h a t S a m a r i a was d e s t r o y e d in t h e s i x t h y e a r o f H e z e k i a h ' s r e i g n a n d P a l e s t i n e i n v a d e d by S e n n a c h e r i b in H e z e k i a h ' s f o u r t e e n t h y e a r ; t h e r e is t h e r e f o r e a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n I I K X V I I I 1 0 a n d I I K X V I I I 1 3 a . I f w e a s s u m e t h a t I I K X V I I I 1 0 is a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t , t h e e r r o r in I I K X V I I I 1 3 a c a n be a c c o u n t e d f o r in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h e i t h e r o f t h e t w o h y p o t h e s e s d i s c u s s e d i n note 11 I f w e a c c e p t 7 2 0 - 7 1 9 as t h e c o r r e c t d a t e , t h e n we m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t n o t o n l y is 1 3 a a w r o n g c h r o n o l o g i c a l n o t i c e , but t h a t I I K X V I I I 9 a n d 1 0 a r e also wroncr T h i s e r r o r c a n be e x p l a i n e d by t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e e d i t o r who w a s responsible f o r the s y n c h r o n o u s chronological notices knew a c c u r a t e l y the interval t h a t h a d e l a p s e d b e t w e e n the f a l l o f S a m a r i a a n d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e L-irst Temple a n d the l e n g t h o f the r e i g n s o f all o f H e z e k i a h ' s s u c c e s s o r s ; b u t t h a t h e d i d n o t k n o w t h e y e a r o f H e z e k i a h ' s a c c e s s i o n , a n d t h a t h e t r i e d to c o m p u t e t h i s bv reckoning backwards. A c c o r d i n g l y , by f a i l i n g to m a k e a l l o w a n c e for double reckoning he w o u l d h a v e d e c i d e d t h a t H e z e k i a h ' s first r e g n a l y e a r w a s five y e a r s e a r l i e r t h a n the d e s t r u c t i o n of S a m a r i a , or t h a t t h i s e v e n t took p l a c e during H e 7 e k i a h ' s sixth year. B u t if w e a c c e p t I I K X V I I I 1 3 a a s c o r r e c t , a n d c o n s e o u e n t l y d e c i d e t h a t H e z e k i a h ' s a c c e s s i o n took p l a c e m 7 1 5 , it i s difficult to a c c o u n t f o r t h e e r r o r i n I I K X V I I I 9, 10. O f t h e t h r e e d a t e s , 7 2 7 , 7 1 5 a n d 7 2 0 , s c h o l a r s a r e i n c l i n e d to f a v o r t h e l a s t b e c a u s e it is e a s i e s t t o h a r m o n i z e with t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l d a t a c o n c e r n i n g K i n g A h a z . I n a c c o r d a n c e with I I K X V I 2 , A h a z r e i g n e d 1 6 y e a r s . _ A c c o r d i n g l y , 7 1 5 is a n imnossible date because we k n o w that A h a z was K i n g during the S y r o - E p h r a i m i t i c W w cf Is V I I Iff.). S i m i l a r l y , it i s difficult t o a c c e p t 7 2 7 a s t h e c o r r e c t d a t e , b e c a u s e t h a t would n e c e s s i t a t e o u r a s s u m i n g t h a t A h a z ' s a c c e s s i o n t o o k p l a c e a s e a r l v as 7 4 * or 7 4 3 , a n d t h a t would c o m p l i c a t e t h e a l r e a d y c o m p l i c a t e d p r o b l e m of the earlier chronology. I t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t it is n o t i m p o s s i b l e to a c c e p t 7 4 2 as t h e c o r r e c t d a t e f o r A h a z ' s a c c e s s i o n . T h e difficulty w h i c h t h e e a r l i e r c h r o n o l o g y p r e s e n t s is t h a t the s u m o f t h e r e g n a l y e a r s o f t h e K i n g s o f Tudah f r o m the d e a t h of A h a z i a h to t h e S y r o - E p h r a i m i t i c . W a r is g r e a t e r t h a n t h e i r u e l e n - t h o f t h e i n t e r v a l , a s is i n d i c a t e d b y t h e A s s y r i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s . Scholars u s u a l l v a t t e m p t t o m e e t t h i s difficulty b y a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e fifty-two years assigned to U z z i a h i n c l u d e s p a r t o f t h e t w e n t y - n i n e y e a r s a t t r i b u t e d t o A m a z i a h ( w h i l e t h e

Notes

to Chapter

II

71

l a t t e r was in c a p t i v i t y , I I K X I Y 13, 17, Uzziah m a y have served as R e g e n t ) a n d the period in which J o t h a m s e r v e d as co-regent ( I I K X I V 5 ) . Since the length of these periods of r e g e n c y is not g i v e n . ( A u c h i n c l o s s is n o t c o r r e c t in a s s u m i n g t h a t I I K X I V 17 implies that A m a z i a h was in c a p t i v i t y fifteen y e a r s — a l l t h a t t h i s v e r s e s t a t e s is that A m a z i a h lived fifteen y e a r s a f t e r t h e death of J e h o a s h , K i n g o f I s r a e l ; how long he was in c a p t i v i t y b e f o r e the death of J e h o a s h is not s t a t e d ) it is possible to c o n t r a c t t h e period b e t w e e n t h e a c c e s s i o n of A t h a l i a h and A h a z a little m o r e t h a n is usually d o n e ; a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , it b e c o m e s possible to a c c e p t 7 4 2 as the d a t e f o r the a c c e s s i o n of A h a z , a n d 727 as the date f o r t h e a c c e s s i o n o f H e z e k i a h . I n d i s c u s s i n g the v a r i o u s theorii s c o n c e r n i n g the date f o r H e z e k i a h ' s a c c e s s i o n , it is n e c e s s a r y to r e f e r to I s . X I V 28-32. .Many s c h o l a r s believe t h a t I s . X I V 2 8 was not i n t e n d e d to imply that A h a z was " t h e rod t h a t s m o t e " the Philistines, a n d H e z e k i a h " t h e basilisk t h a t shall come forth out o f the s e r p e n t ' s r o o t " ( v . 2 9 ) ; but r a t h e r to serve as a c h r o n o l o g i c a l notice d a t i n g the b r i e f o r a c l e w h i c h f o l l o w s . If A h a z died in 7 2 7 , t h e year in which T i g l a t h - P i l e t h e r died, the reason f o r t h e Philist i n e s ' r e j o i c i n g is c l e a r . S i m i l a r l y , if we a s s u m e that A h a z died in 7 2 0 , shortly a f t e r the A s s y r i a n d e f e a t at D u r - i l u , t h e r e would have been r e a s o n f o r t h e P h i l i s t i n e s ' r e j o i c i n g d u r i n g the y e a r t h a t A h a z died. H o w e v e r . if we a s s u m e that Ahaz died in 71/5, it is not c l e a r why t h e P h i l i s t i n e s should have r e j o i c e d d u r i n g t h a t y e a r . 13Bible c r i t i c s a r e f a c e d with a similar problem in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n o f J e r . L I I to IT K X X I V 1 8 - X X V 30. S c h o l a r s a r e less i n c l i n e d TO q u e s t i o n the assumption u s u a l l y m a d e that J e r . L I 1 is an e x c e r p t f r o m K i n g s ( S u p p o r t e d by J e r . L I 6 4 i r P O V ' " i n run ly ) . T h e r e is no r e f e r e n c e to J e r e m i a h in C h . L I I , but t h e purpose o f t h e editor o f t h e book of J e r e m i a h in e x c e r p t i n g this c h a p t e r f r o m t h e book o f K i n g s and p l a c i n g it as a n a p p e n d i x to his book would be c l e a r -to i n d i c a t e t h a t J e r e m i a h ' s prophecy was realized. ( N o t e the a b s e n c e o f the s t o r y o f G e d a l i a h , I I K X X V 22-26 f r o m J e r . L I I ) .

Tt is im; o r t a n t to note, h o w e v e r , that t h e r e is n o t h i n g in I I K X X V c o r r e s p o n d i n g to J e r . L I I 2 8 - 3 0 . I f J e r . L I I is taken f r o m K i n g s , how is t h e i n c l u s i o n of these verses in J e r e m i a h and their omission in K i n g s to be a c c o u n t e d f o r ? S h a l l we a s s u m e t h a t these v e r s e s were i n s e r t e d from' a n o t h e r a c c o u n t ( c f . S t a d e , P o l y c h r o m e B i b l e - K i n g s p. 3 0 5 ) ? O r c a n we a s s u m e that they r e p r e s e n t a b i t e r a d d i t i o n ? Or that these v e r s e s were p r e s e n t in the K i n c s r e c e n s i o n at t h e t i m e t h a t J e r . L I I w a s excerpted from it? O r is it n e c e s s a r y to m o d i f y t h e hypothesis t h a t J e r . L I I w a s derived f r o m K i n g s ? 14The I s i a n i c r e s c e n s i o n shows a definite t e n d e n c y to g r e a t e r s i m p l i c i t y a n d abridgment. ( S e e n o t e s 3 a n d 4 where the d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e two r e s c e n s i o n s a r e e n u m e r a t e d — n o t e p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n I I K X X 4-6 and I X X X V I I I 4-6, I I K X X 9 - 1 1 and I X X X V T T T 7 - 8 ) . T h e r e is n o t h i n g in t h e K i n g s r e s c e n s i o n h o w e v e r , to c o r r e s p o n d to I X X X V I I I 9 - 2 0 ( P s a l m o f H e z e k i a h ) . T h o s e who believe t h a t the I s i a n i c r e s c e n s i o n is an a b r i d g m e n t of K i n g s have to a c c o u n t for t h e i n c l u sion o f this P s a l m . T h e a n s w e r u s u a l l y given is that it was derived f r o m a n o t h e r s o u r c e ; but this a n s w e r is h a r d l y c o n s i s t e n t with the t h e o r y of a b r i d g m e n t . ir,Oriver, L . O . T . ( 1 9 2 0 ) p.227, adduccs the following additional arguments: ( 1 ) T h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e s show m a n i f e s t t r a c e s of h a v i n g passed through t h e h a n d o f the compiler o f " K i n g s : " ( a ) I X X X V I I 15-20 ( f o r m in which H e z e k i a h ' s p r a y e r is c a s t ) ( b ) I X X X V I I 35b ( r e f e r e n c e to D a v i d — n o parallel in Tsaiah. o f f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e in K i n g s ) ( c ) I X X X V I T T 1 a n d I X X X I X 1 ( " i n tho*e d a y s " ; " a t this t i m e " ) (d) X X X V I I I 3 (characteristic Deuteronomic phrase—cf. I Kings I I 4; I I I G: V I I I 2 3 , 2 5 : I X 4 ) ( 2 ) ' ' a l t h o u g h the prophecy a t t r i b u t e d to I s a i a h ( I s . X X X V I I 2 2 - 3 2 ) is u n m i s t a k a b l y I s a i a h ' s , the s u r r o u n d i n g n a r r a t i v e shows no l i t e r a r y t r a i t s characteristic of I s a i a h . " T h e f o l l o w i n g a r g u m e n t has also been g i v e n : I X X X V I 1 c o r r e s p o n d s to I I K X \ ITT 13. T h e first part o f t h e passage is in all likelihood the work o f t h e c o m p i l e r o f K i n if;, who p r e p a r e d t h e chronological f r a m e w o r k i n t o which t h e e x c e r p t s f r o m the a n n a l s h a v e b e e n c a s t . I f this a s s u m p t i o n is c o r r e c t , then t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t Tsaiah is derived f r o m K i n g s is v e r y s t r o n g . ( T h u s we are o n c e m o r e c o n f r o n t e d with a v i c i o u s c i r c l e ) . lfiA.T.S.L. ( A p r i l 1 9 1 5 ) p. 1 0 9 - 2 1 4 . I n this a r t i c l e P r o f . O l m s t e a d t r i e s t o t r a c e the history of t h e H e b r e w T e x t on the basis of a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y o f t h e t r a n s l a tions. P r o f . O l m s t e a d m a i n t a i n s that the t r a n s l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e a definite t e n d e n c y t o e l a b o r a t e the t e x t r a t h e r t h a n to abridge it. " A l l scholars are a g r e e d t h a t t h e e x c e r p t s f r o m t h e S t a t e A n n a l s , which f u r n i s h us with a b r i e f s u m m a r y o f t h e r e i g n s of the v a r i o u s K i n g s , f o r m the f r a m e w o r k o f the e n t i r e book. T o these e x c e r p t s were added as a part of t h e f r a m e w o r k , c h r o n o logical n o t i c e s s t e r e o t y p e d f o r m u l a e at the b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d i n g o f e a c h r e i g n , c o m m e n t s (in t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c s p i r i t ) c o n c e r n i n g e a c h king. T h e r e were later added e x c e r p t s f r o n t prophetic w r i t i n g s and d i v e r s e s o u r c e s of u n k n o w n o r i g i n . B e f o r e t h e B o o k o f K i n g s assumed its p r e s e n t f o r m , ( M . T . ) it w a s p r o b a b l y e d i t e d and re-edited a n u m b e r of t i m e s ( m a n y p a s s a g e s a t t r i b u t e d to t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editor a r e u n d o u b t e d l y of a l a t e r o r i g i n ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , although _ it is c o n c e d e d that t h e t e x t of K i n g s u n d e r w e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c h a n g e , t h e possibility t h a t v e r s e s 14-16 a r e a l a t e r i n t e r p o l a t i o n , is a very r e m o t e o n e .

72

Notes to Chapter

II

" S k i n n e r , in his commentary on Isaiah (p.277) after considering Driver's arguments in favor of the assumption that Isaiah was borrowed from Kings, admits the possibility of the theory that Kings and Isaiah may have been independently derived. He dismisses the question, however, with the statement that " t h e r e is no great reason for assuming that the editor of Isaiah used as an independent authority the older document on which the editor of Kings based his account." I am sorry, that P r o f . Skinner dismissed this question so lightly, for there is a .great deal of plausibility to the theory of the independent derivation of Kings and Isaiah. 19If we assume a very close correspondence between the Biblical account in its present form (an intermediate source) and the original documents from which they were derived (a primary source) the source value of the Biblical story is enhanced; but it is important to remember, that the trustworthiness of the accounts in Kings and Isaiah, would be dependent upon the trustworthiness of the original source. 2°If this verse is to be assumed to have been derived from the annals, then we are confronted with the difficulty of accounting for the spelling of the K i n g ' s name as lrrptil . 2 1 Cf.Floigl—Die Chronologie der Bibel (Leipzig 1889) pp. 28ff. Floigl bases his argument that I I K X V I I I 1 7 — X X 19 is a post-exilic legendary tale on the reference to deportation to Babylon in I I K X X 17. It is important to note, however, that in this prophecy there is no reference to the destruction of the Temple, and no mention is made of the entire people going into captivity; and surely, if I I K X X 17ff. had been composed during the post-exilic period, both of these elements would have been included. However, many scholars agree with Floigl that this prophecy is non-Isianic. (Some interpret it as a reference to Manasseh. C f . I I Ch. X X X I I I 11.) Those scholars, who accept I I K X X 17f. as an Isianic oracle, must admit that it could not have been possible for an eighth century prophet to have anticipated that a king of Babylon would some day take the royal family of Judah into captivity. They must interpret the reference to the king of Babylon as a figure of speech; that Isaiah had in mind not the king of Babylon, but the king of Assyria, and that he referred to the King of Babylon for the sake of greater contrast. T h i s is a very natural interpretation of the entire situation. To grant, however, that this oracle is a non-Isianic late composition, does not make necessary the assumption that the whole account into which this oracle has been incorporated is of late origin. Kuenen cites as proof that I I K X V I i I 1 7 — X I X 37 is a late legendary account ( 1 ) the fact that there is a gross exaggeration in the description of the number killed ( v . 3 6 ) ; ( 2 ) that v.37 implies that the death of Sennacherib took place immediately after Sennacherib's return to Assyria. ( T h i s interpretation of v.37 is very common It is used as an argument in favor of the hypothesis that during the latter part of Sennacherib's reign, there took place a second Assyrian invasion of Palestine. Personally, I do not see why such an implication must be assigned to v.37; in fact the words illJ'JS W ' l seem to indicate a contrary implication); ( 3 ) Rabshakeli s allusions to the destruction of altars and high-places (see pp. 52ff.) where Rabshakeh s address is analysed and discussed in detail); ( 4 ) the thoughts expressed by Hezekiah in his prayer ( X I X 15-19) represent the thoughts of a later age; ( 5 ) the prophecies ascribed to Isaiah are not Isianic. Kuenen believes that the story evolved as a result of the prediction expressed by Isaiah in Ch. X V I I v.14 (see Ch I I I pp. 96ff.). 2 3 Even those who hold the view that I I K X V I I I 17ff. describes a subsequent stage of the campaign referred to in vv.14-16, admit that vv.14-16 represent an independent source. , ,. ^ TT „ I f so there may have been in the state annals an account corresponding to 11 K X V I I I 17ff which was not quoted by the editor of Kings. His failure to do so, however can be accounted for by the assumption that he preferred to make use of the fuller account. Similiarly, in order to explain his resorting to the annals to describe the tribute paid, it is not necessary to assume that the other source did not contain any mention of this fact. I t is very possible that both sources may have contained a description of the payment of tribute and that the editor of Kings preferred to quote the annals, because it was described there either more fully or else, more BCC

23rCompare Sargon's account of the battle of Dur-ilu with the Babylonian

Chronicle

2 » S u c h Reversal of the order on the part of the Hebrew historian can be explained only as a deliberate attempt on his part to make it appear that the outcome of Sennacherib's campaign was entirely unfavorable. I f so, why was it necessary tor him to include the story of the payment of tribute? ssThe advance of Tirhakah, or rumors of unrest in Babylon. 2 6 This theory was first suggested by Sir H. Rawlmson (quoted by t.. Kawlinson, History of Herodotus—1862). Rawlinson's suggestion, however was not seriously considered until it was restated by Winckler. To-day it is advocated by Prftsek, Fullerton and Rogers and other scholars of repute . 2 "I will show below that there are some scholars who advocate the hypothesis of a second campaign, and yet regard X V I I I 1 7 — X I X 9 as referring to the same campaign as X V I I I 14-16. They base their theory of a second campaign on X I X 9-37. 2 f i Unless the Lachish bas-relief does not describe the capture of Lachish in 701, but rather the capture of that city during the hypothetical second campaign. bee Ch. I p. 9b. C0l

Notes to Chapter

//

73

29 C f . V i t r i n g a , C o m m e n t a r i u s in J e s a i a m (1720) v . I I p. 306 Col. I I . soEven in a c c o r d a n c e with t h i s view ,we c a n not a s s u m e t h a t I s a i a h X X X V I X X X I X w a s t h e o n l y s o u r c e used by t h e a u t h o r of t h e K i n g s a c c o u n t . Vv.14-16 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e w e r e o t h e r s o u r c e s at his disposal. 31 S i n c e Is. X X X V I I 38 d e s c r i b i n g the d e a t h of S e n n a c h e r i b nrust h a v e been w r i t t e n a f t e r 681, t h e y e a r in which t h a t e v e n t h a p p e n e d , we m u s t a s s u m e a m i n i m u m tapse of t w e n t y y e a r s b e t w e e n the t r a n s p i r i n g of the e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d a n d the t i m e of w r i t i n g ; ( t h a t is, if we t a k e f o r g r a n t e d t h a t v.38 w a s a p a r t of t h e o r i g i n a l a c c o u n t ) . If so, t h e n this a c c o u n t , if w r i t t e n by I s a i a h , m u s t h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n w h e n I s a i a h w a s m o r e t h a n eighty y e a r s old. ( W e must assume that Isaiah was born c.760, s i n c e his c a r e e r a s a p r o p h e t b e g a n in t h e year w h e n U z z i a h d i e d , (c.740) a n d since d u r i n g t h e S y r o - E p h r a i m i t i c W a r ( 7 3 5 ) he a l r e a d y h a d a son w h o w a s probably old e n o u g h to walk by h i m s e l f ) . I t is n e c e s s a r y t o keep in m i n d , h o w e v e r , t h e possibility t h a t v.38 w a s a d d e d some t i m e a f t e r S e n n a c h e r i b w a s killed. ( I f Is. X X X V I I 7 w a s a g e n u i n e I s i a n i c p r o p h e c y , it w o u l d h a v e been n a t u r a l f o r this v e r s e to be a d d e d , in o r d e r to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o p h e c y h a d been fulfilled. If we s u s p e c t t h a t t h e w o r d s 21113 "PH^Sm w e r e a d d e d by a g l o s s a t o r , t h e n we can be sceptical as to v.38. 32 No i n f e r e n c e as to t h e I s i a n i c a u t h o r s h i p of Ch. X X X V I - X X X X I X can b e d r a w n f r o m t h e r e f e r e n c e in C h r o n i c l e s ( I I Chr. X X X I I 32) to t h e H i s t o r y of H e z e k i a h ' s r e i g n which is to be f o u n d in the Vision of I s a i a h . ( T h e C h r o n i c l e r cites as his a u t h o r i t y not only t h e Vision of I s a i a h , b u t also the book of the K i n g s of Fudah a n d I s a i a h . T h e M a s s o r e t i c T e x t r e a d s "1DO ¿ J J K ^ i n n & N 12 i r p y & r p.tn ^ " I t ^ M r m m O ^ o O n the basis of G r e e k \ u l g a t e a n d A r a m a i c v e r s i o n s . i t is s a f e t o assume that is m o r e c o r r e c t than ?JJ). If t h i s r e f e r e n c e Is to Ch. X X X V I X X X I X of our books of I s a i a h , all t h a t c a n be s a f e l y a s s u m e d on t h e s t r e n g t h of chis r e f e r e n c e is t h a t t h e s e c h a p t e r s m u s t have a l r e a d y b e l o n g e d to the collection of I s i a n i c p r o p h e c i e s at the t i m e t h a t the c h r o n i c l e r was p r e p a r i n g his h i s t o r y . (It is a J e w i s h c u s t o m to r e f e r to a book by the o p e n i n g w o r d s . W e can. therefore, r e a d i l y conceive t h a t the book of I s a i a h was at o n e t i m e r e f e r r e d to as"irpyt£ n MTn). I t is possible to c o n t e n d , t h a t since I s a i a h is v e r y specifically r e f e r r e d to as a n h i s t o r i a n in c o n n e c t i o n with U z z i a h ' s r e i g n , ( I I C h r . X X V l 2 2 ) , t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t I s a i a h is also the a u t h o r of a h i s t o r y of H e z e k i a h ' s r e i g n is v e r y plausible. E v e n if we g r a n t t h i s c o n t e n t i o n f o r the m o m e n t , it is n e c e s s a r y to k e e - in m i n d t h a t to a s s u m e t h a t I s a i a h w a s t h e a u t h o r of a h i s t o r y of H e z e k i a h ' s r e i g n does not w a r r a n t u s in the f u r t h e r a s s u m p t i o n t h a t this h i s t o r y c o n s t i t u t e s C h a p t e r s X X X V I - X X X I X of o u r p r e s e n t book of I s a i a h . I n our p r e s e n t book of I s a i a h , t h e r e is no t r a c e of U z z i a h ' s r e i g n which is a s c r i b e d to him, a n d , t h e r e f o r e , if the r e f e r e n c e is a c c u r a t e , it m u s t r e f e r to a n o n - e x t a n t d o c u m e n t . I s it not conceivable t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e in C h r o n i c l e s to a h i s t o r y of H e z e k i a h is not to o u r p r e s e n t book, b u t also to this n o n e x t a n t d o c u m e n t , of which t h e h i s t o r y of U z z i a h was also a p a r t ? The supposition might be r e v e r s e d , h o w e v e r . I t is also c o n c e i v a b l e , a l t h o u g h n o t p r o b a b l e , t h a t t h e history of U z z i a h r e f e r r e d to by t h e C h r o n i c l e r m i g h t h a v e at o n e t i m e belonged to the book of I s a i a h . I t might be a s s u m e d t h a t in I s a i a h ' s " H i s t o r y of U z z i a h " t h e r e was n o t h i n g a b o u t h i m s e l f , a n d t h e r e f o r e an e d i t o r of t h e book of I s a i a h , who w a s later t h a n the c h r o n i c l e r , c o n s i d e r e d these c h a p t e r s out of place in a uook of I s a i a h ' s p r o p h e c i e s a n d r e m o v e d them. Such a p r o c e d u r e would h a v e been v e r y n a t u r a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y if at t h a t t i m e it w a s no l o n g e r k n o w n t h a t the h i s t o r y w a s w r i t t e n by Isaiah. I n a c c o r d a n c e with tins a s s u m p t i o n ch. X X X V I - X X X I X w e r e a l l o w e d to r e m a i n , n o t b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n Dy I s a i a h , but b e c a u s e of the p r o m i n e n t p a r t played by I s a i a h in the e v e n t s described. S u c h a d e f e r c e of I s a i a h ' s a u t h o r s h i p , comes v e r y close to the t h e o r i e s a d v o c a t e d by t h o s e who d e n y the I s i a n i c a u t h o r s h i p , a n d who a s s u m e t h a t t h e i r p r e s e n c e in the book of I s a i a h is d u e to t h e d e s i r e of t h e editor of t h e book of I s a i a h to give c r e d i t to I s a i a h f o r his a c h i e v e m e n t s d u r i n g the n a t i o n a l crisis. 33 H o w e v e r , it is possible to a r g u e that even in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e r e w e r e i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s c e n s i o n s , t h e r e is no reason to suspect t h a t o u r p r e s e n t t e x t is_ r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e original source. T h e i n c l u s i o n of v v . 1 4 - 1 6 s e e m s to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e e d i t o r s did not take v e r y m u c h liberty witri t h e i r s o u r c e s , but that t h e y t e n d e d to i n c o r p o r a t e w h a t e v e r sources came to their disposal in almost the i d e n t i c a l f o r m in w h i c h they f o u n d t h e m . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n is c o n f i r m e d by the fact t h a t t h e two e x t a n t r e s c e n s i o n s d i f f e r f r o m o n e a n o t h e r v e r y little w Chs. V I I and X X . C f . X X X 8. ^ C f . M e i n h o l d , Die J e s a j a e r z a h l u n g e n pp. 49ff. 36 In a c c o r d a n c e with this view, I I Iv X I X 9b ff. m u s t be r e g a r d e d as d e s c r i b i n g e v e n t s which h a p p e n e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e e v e n t s described m I I K X \ I I I 17 X I X 9a. 37 Those who believe t h a t K i n g s a n d I s a i a h w e r e d e r i v e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y , c a n n o t a d v o c a t e the t h e o r y t h a t they w e r e d e r i v e d f r o m two i n d e p e n d e n t sources. If they f a v o r t h e view t h a t I I K X V I I I 1 7 - X I X 37 ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g c h a p t e r s in I s a i a h ) is a composite, t h e y m u s t a s s u m e t h a t the source f r o m which K i n g s a n d I s a i a h w e r e d e r i v e d was a l r e a d y composite. I n which case, the probability is in f a v o r of this d o c u m e n t b e i n g a r a t h e r late d o c u m e n t . 3S T h e a n a l y s i s given h e r e r e p r e s e n t s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h a t m a d e bv S t a d e ( A n m e r k u n g e n zu I I K X V - X X ) Z . A . W . v.6 (1886) pp. 172ff. S t a d e bases his c o n t e n t i o n t h a t I I K X \ I I I 1 7 - X I X 37 is not a u n i t v on t h r e e

74

Notes

to Chapter

II

arguments. ( 1 ) T h e r e a r e t h r e e p r o p h e c i e s a t t r i b u t e d t o I s a i a h ( X I X T, 2Sb, 3 3 ) a n d t h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e in t h e l a t t e r p r o p h e c i e s t h a t a p r e v i o u s p r o p h e c y h a d b e e n given. ( 2 ) T h e first p r o p h e c y X I X 7 is t h e m o s t s e v e r e — t h e r e is n o t h r e a t t o S e n n a c h e r i b in the others. It does not seem n a t u r a l that w h e n r e i t e r a t i n g a p r o p h e c y , ihe p r o p h e t w o u l d omit a n i m p o r t a n t t h r e a t . ( 3 ) T h a t X I X 9a s e e m s to be a fitting finish to t h e s t o r y b e g u n in I I K X V I I I 1 3 a n d X V I I I 17 ( v v . 8 a n d 9a s e e m to b e a f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e p r o p h e c y in v . 7 ) ; w h e r e a s X I X 9 b f f . is a n u n n a t u r a l s e q u e n c e t o X I X 9a. I n a d d i t i o n to s e p a r a t i n g I I K X V I I I 1 7 - X I X a f r o m X I X b - 3 7 , S t a d e b e l i e v e s t h a t I I K X I X 21-31 s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d f r o m I I K X I X 9b-37. F o r his a r g u m e n t s see p p . 4 7 f f . i: •' 'I I K X I X 14. S o m e s c h o l a r s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n between v.14 a n d v . 1 0 . I t c a n n o t b e i n f e r r e d f r o m v . 1 0 t h a t t h e m e s s a g e of S e n n a c h e r i b w a s oral. E a r l y B a b y l o n i a n l e t t e r s u s u a l l y s t a r t w i t h f o r m u l a " T o A s a y ' T h u s s a y e t h \\. y " T h i s f o r m of s a l u t a t i o n is v e r y f r e q u e n t in t h e I I a n r m u r a b b i a n d t h e A m a r n a P e r i o d s , i t d o e s n o t s e e m to h a v e b e e n u s e d m u c h b y t h e S . a r g o n i d K i n g s . I t is f o u n d , h o w e v e r , in a l e t t e r of A s h u r b a n i p a l H 9 2 6 . ( S e e J . A . O . S . v.43 pp. 26-40.) This f o r m of s a l u t a t i o n c a n be e x p l a i n e d i n v a r i o u s w a y s . It may have originated from che c u s t o m of s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e w r i t t e n m e s s a g e w i t h a n o r a l o n e ( s o t h a t t h e m e s s a g e c o u l d b e p r o p e r l y d e l i v e r e d e v e n if t h e w r i t t e n o n e w e r e l o s t ) , o r e l s e i t n a y h a v e a r i s e n o u t of t h e c u s t o m of h a v i n g l e t t e r s r e a d b y p r o f e s s i o n a l r e a d e r s . ( F o r t h i s n o t e I a m i n d e b t e d to l ) r . K. (i. I I . K r a e l i r g . ) 1 '11 I\ X V I I I 17, ( I X X X V I 2). S o m e scholars, w h o do n o t believe that t h e s e v e r s e s r e f e r t o t h e b l o c k a d e m e n t i o n e d in t h e A s s y r i a n A n n a l s , h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d the w o r d s "123 ^ T i S a s r e f e r r i n g t o a m i l i t a r y e s c o r t r a t h e r t h a n to a l a r g e a r m y . The text d o e s n o t allow such a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d such a c o n c l u s i o n c a n o n l y be reached by deliberately t a m p e r i n g with the text. S o m e s c h o l a r s s e e m to find it easier to m a k e t h e t e x t a c c o m m o d a t e itself to the t h e o r y , t h a n to t r y to a c c o m m o d a t e a t h e o r y to t h e t e x t . 1l I n I I K X I X 7. I s a i a h p r e d i c t s t h a t S e n n a c h e r i b w i l l r e t u r n t o h i s o w n l a n d b e c a u s e of a r u m o r t h a t h e will h e a r , a n d t h a t t h e r e h e will d i e a n u n n a t u r a l d e a t h . I n I I K X I X 32 I s a i a h p r e d i c t s t h a t G o d w i l l p r o t e c t J e r u s a l e m , a n d a s a r e s u l t , J e r u s a l e m will b e i m m u n e . ^ I f t h e s e c o n d a c c o u n t b e g i n s w i t h 9 a , t h e n t h e e n d of t h e f i r s t a c c o u n t is missing. 4;i If vv.3G a n d 37 a r e a p a r t of t h e s e c o n d a c c o u n t , t h e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the first a c c o u n t , I s a i a h ' s p r o p h e c y r e m a i n s u n f u l f i l l e d . 4t S t a d e ( I . e . ) s u g g e s t s a v e r y t e m p t i n g e m e n d a t i o n , v i z . , t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e word a f t e r the word (v.9). It is i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e t h a t t h e w o r d 2L"""1 is l a c k i n g in t h e I s i a n i c r e s c e n s i o n . Shall we a s s u m e that in both r e s c e n s i o n s , tlie p h r a s e ' V ^ ' 1 2 " " " was origma'ly present—that when the two accounts were j o i n e d t o g e t h e r , t h e I s i a n i c e d i t o r t r i e d t o h a r m o n i z e t h e m by o m i t t i n g t h e e n t i r e p h r a s e , w h e r e a s t h e e d i t o r of K i n g s w a s n o t q u i t e so l o g i c a l a n d t h e r e f o r e r e t a i n e d the word WlK? T h e r e can be no d o u b t t h a t t h e w o r d nti^l in t h e t e x t of Kings makes the text difficult. T o a c c e p t S t a d e ' s e m e n d a t i o n m a k e s it n e c e s s a r y to a c c e p t h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t I I K X V I I I 1 7 - X I X 9a r e p r e s e n t s a c o m p l e t e a c c o u n t . 45. O n e ' of t h e c h i e f d i f f i c u l t ^ w i t h t h i s d i v i s i o n is t h e w o r d m the Kings rescension. T h o s e w h o w i s h to d i v i d e t h e t w o a c c o u n t s a t t h e e n d of v . 8 m u s t a s s u m e t h a t t h e e d i t o r of K i n g s a d d e d t h e w o r d 2L" , 1 in a c r u d e a t t e m p t to m a k e che s e c o n d a c c o u n t a p p e a r a s a n a t u r a l s e q u e l t o t h e f i r s t . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h o s e s c h o l a r s w h o b e l i e v e t h a t K w a s d e r i \ ed f r o m I , e s c a p e t h e n e c e s s i t y of a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e a b s e n c e of t h e w o r d 2'J M 1 in t h e I - . i a n i c r e s c e n s i o n . T h o ^ e scholar'-, who believe t h a t 1 w a s d e r i v e d f r o m K . m u s t a s s u m e t i n t t h e e d i t o r of T s a i a h , w h i l e c o p y i n g t h e K i n g s c o m p o s i t e , s e n s e d a n i n c o n g r u i t y in t h e w o r d 2 ^ and substituted the • » " S e n n a c h e r i b m a y h^.ve a d v a n c e d a s f a r a s P e l u s i u m ( H e r o d o t u s IT 1 4 1 ) . If w e a c c e p t H e r o d o t u s ' s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e got a s f a r a s P e l u s i u m , w e m u s t a l s o a c c e p t the s u b s e q u e n t s t a t e m e n t that he w a s checked t h e r e . ' " K u e n e n , f o r e x a m p l e , m a i n t a i n s t h a t I I K X I X 2 1 - 3 1 is a g e n u i n e Isianic o r a c l e , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t h e a d m i t s t h a t v.2.> is s u s p i c i o u s . (lie, too, thinks that v.25 s u g g e s t s I I I s a i a h . ) K u e n e n b a s e s h i s v i e w o n t h e f a c t tlta? t h e p r o p h e c y is c o n c r e t e a n d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of t h i s s e c t i o n r e s e m b l e s v e r y c l o s e l y t h e l a n g u a g e of Is'-'ah ( K u e n e n , h o w e v e r , q u e s t i o n s t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of v v . 3 2 - 3 4 o n a c c o u n t of t h e nhrnse n a v " i n 1VO-1 Tin's n h r a « e is n o t I s i a n i c : it is a v e r v c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p h r a s e t h e c o m b e r of K i n g s - I K XT 12. 13, 32 3 4 : X V 4; I I K V I I I . 1 9 ; X X 6 . ) The v i e w t h l ' t I I K X I X 2 1 - 2 8 is I s i a n i c is s h a r e d b v S e l l i n ( E m l e i t u n g ill d a s A l t e T e s t a ment ) S e l l i n r e f e r s to it a s a " S p o t t l i e d " on t h e K i n g of A s s y r i a . (Sellin admits that vv ' 5 - 2 7 m i g h t not be I s i a n i c but a late a d d i t i o n . ) D r i v e r ( L . O . T . 1 9 2 0 . p. 2 2 / ) -dsn a c c e n t s TI X I X 21 -SI a s I s i a n i c . Tie b e l i e v e s t h a t " t h e p r o p h e c y b e a r s u n m i s t a k a b l e m a r k s of I s a i a h ' s h a n d , h u t t h a t t h e s u r r o u n d i n g n a r r a t i v e is t h e w o r k of a later writer." ,s 2 1 a is n o t a p a r t of t h e p o e m . " T h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s f a c t in A . Tt is p o s s i b l e t h a t s u c h a f a c t m a y h a v e b e e n r e c o r d e d in t h e H e b r e w A n n a l s , b u t t h a t t h e c o m p i l e r of t h e H o o k of K i n g s d i d n o t i n c l u d e it w h e n m a k i n g h i s e x c e r p t . t"'ln t h e d i s c u s s i o n of Is. X V I I 12-11. I h a v e i d n i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s u c h

Notes

to Chapter

II

75

a legend evolving without a basis in f a c t , as a result of naive assumption that all o f Isaiah's predictions must have been realized.

1T82

2in2

IWEm

uouKnn >¥"183 mtrK I f we regard vv.36 and 37 as a part of B, then the c o r r e c t n e s s of the1 information contained in v.37 would be another indication that B was based on authentic sources. Not all scholars are ready to concede that the details given in v.37 c o n c e r n i n g the murder of S e n n a c h e r i b are a c c u r a t e . I t will be helpful to analyse this verse and to discuss each element separately. ( a ) T h e r e f e r e n c e to " t h e temple of Nishroch his g o d " is not c l e a r — b u t that S e n n a c h e r i b was murdered while worshipping in a temple is indicated by a r e f e r e n c e to the murder of his g r a n d f a t h e r in an inscription of Ashurbanipal ( R a s s a m Cylinder Col. I V 70ff. translated K . B . I I 1 9 2 ) . Jirku (A. K. p. 1 8 2 ) suggests that "PCprobably represents a mutilated form of a n a m e of a B a b y l o n i a n deity. Some scholars have tried to identify with M a r d u k , but the identification is rather f a r - f e t c h e d . ( N o r have the attempts to identify the name with that of an A s s y r i a n deity been more successful. For further discussion of this question see J . O f i o r d — T h e Assassination of S e n n a c h e r i b . P . E . E . 1918, pp. 8 8 - 9 0 ; U n g n a d . Der O r t der E r m o r d e r u n g , Z.A. v . X X X V ; A d l e r — O n the death of S e n n a c h e r i b , A . O . S . J . v . X I I I , 1 8 b 9 . ) ( b ) I n a c c o r d a n c e with v.37, S e n n a c h e r i b was murdered by two sons. In a c c o r d a n c e with the B a b y l o n i a n Chronicle (Col. I l l 1.34) he was killed by only one son. A statement in an inscription of Nabonidus ( N a b o n i d u s S t e l e 1.39, see M. V. A.G., 1896 p. 2 5 ) and a quotation from Polyhistor (which is in turn a quotation f r o m B e r o s s u s ) by P^usebius ( E u s e b i Chronicorum, L i b e r I , ed. S c h o e n e , B e r l i n 1875, I 2 7 ) correspond with the B a b y l o n i a n Chronicle. On the other hand, that S e n n a c h e r i b was murdered by more than one son is confirmed by a r e f e r e n c e in an inscription of Essarhaddon to his b r o t h e r s (he uses the plural consistentlv throughout his a c c o u n t ) who murdered his father ( c f . Albright, J . A . O . S . v . X X X V pp. 3 9 1 ff., Meissner_ O.Z. 1914, col. 3 4 4 - 3 4 6 ) . ( c ) T h e r e is no r e f e r e n c e anywhere to sons of S e n n a c h e r i b who bear the names of A d r a m e l e c h and S h a r e z e r ( t h e r e have been a n u m b e r of attempts to identify these names with the names of the known sons of S e n n a c h e r i b , but they have not been successful. C f . I i a l l , A . I 1 . N . E . p. 4 9 3 ) . T h e limnru corresponding to 682 was named a f t e r Nabusharusur (was he one of the conspirators who killed S e n n a c h e r i b , the S h a r e z e r of the Old T e s t a m e n t ? ) I V K I t ^ is evidently a Hebraization of an A s s y r i a n (or B a b y l o n i a n ) name. Can we assume that A r d u m u z a n u s , the n a m e of S e n n a c h e r i b ' s m u r d e r e r given by P o l y h i s t o r , is a G r e e k corruption of the same n a m e ? I t is easier to identify A d r a m e l e c h with Adram'elus, who, in accordance with E u s e b i u s ' quotation of Abydenus, was the m u r d e r e r of his f a t h e r Nergal. ( ! ) ( I t is now known that the quotation f r o m A b y d e m u s can be traced to Polyhistor's quotations from Berossus. Cf.SchnabelB e r o s s u s pp. 1 6 7 f f . ) ( d ) T h e r e is no confirmation in the Assyrian sources of the statement that the m u r d e r e r s fled to A r a r a t ( U r a r t u ? ) , but E s s a r h a d d o n , in his description of his efforts to a v e n g e his f a t h e r ' s death (I.e.) states that upon his approach the m u r d e r e r s fled to an unknown land. I s it not possible that this unknown land was U r a r t u ? I f so, the author of v.37 must have been e x c e e d i n g l y wellinformed. ( C f . Josephus' quotation from B e r o s s u s . ) ( e ) I t is important to note the a c c u r a t e r e f e r e n c e to S e n n a c h e r i b ' s successor. r , 1 Ilall (C.A.PI. v . I l l p. 2 7 9 ) r a t h e r than to admit a natural a n a c h r o n i s m , suggests the possibility that the clash between the E g y p t i a n s and the A s s y r i a n s described by H e r o d o t u s I I 141 and I I K X V I I I 17ff. ( B C ) r e f e r s to Essarhaddon's u n s u c c e s s f u l invasion of Egypt. H e p r e f e r s this new hypothesis to the hypothesis o f a second invasion by S e n n a c h e r i b , (which he defends in A . I I . N . E . 5th edition, 1 9 2 0 ) , because t h e r e is not sufficient evidence to w a r r a n t the assumption that S e n n a c h e r i b invaded P a l e s t i n e during the last years of his reign. Hall admits that it may have been possible f o r T i r h a k a h to have been in command of an Egyptian army in 7 0 1 , but in c r d e r to explain the r e f e r e n c e to T i r h a k a h as K i n g of Ethiopia, he p r e f e r s to assume that both the E g y p t i a n s and the H e b r e w s c o n f u s e d Essarhaddon with S e n n a c h e r i b . ( S i c ! A remarkable c o i n c i d e n c e ) . T h i s view is shared by S . S m i t h , C . A . H . v . I l l p. 74. 55 r p n ? n:p o n r n tsn . . . . e n v o ?3 u n u T h e expression HOP is used by I I I s a i a h in a literal sense ( I s . X L I I 3 ) . •™1I K X V I I I 4 ( c t . I I Chr. X X I X - X X X I ) . T h e chief reasons f o r doubting the historicity of the account of Hezekiah's r e f o r m s are ( a ) its similarity to the reform? of J o s i a h a n d ( b ) to the lack of r e f e r e n c e in the description of J o s i a h ' s r e f o r m s to a similar r e f o r m during the time of Hezekiah ( c f . I I K X X I I I 1 3 ; c f . I I K X X I I I 22 and I I C h r . C h . X X X , especially verses 21 and 2 6 ) . M a n y scholars believe that the r e f o r m s of Hezekiah may have been limited to the breaking of the bronze serpent (there is no reason for questioning the historicity of this s t a t e m e n t — t h e description has the e a r m a r k s of an authentic account. That a bronze serpent was worshipped in the T e m p l e is very possible. I t is also probable that there was a popular notion that this serpent derived its sanctity from M o s e s rvim'self. I f so, the fact that in the detailed statement of all the abominations removed from the T e m p l e by J o s i a h , t h e r e is no r e f e r e n c e to this bronze serpent, seems to 51

53

76

Notes to Chapter II

be a confirmation of the statement that this bronze serpent ( J J I B T O was destroyed by H e z e k i a h ) . T h e y assume that the e x t e n s i o n of H e z e k i a h ' s r e f o r m s to include the removal of the high-places was influenced by the description of J o s i a h ' s r e f o r m s . (An editor living a f t e r J o s i a h ' s r e f o r m s had taken root might naturally have i n f e r r e d that if Hezekiah was a pious king, who had done that which was right in the eyes of the L o r d , he could not have c o u n t e n a n c e d the high-places. - T h i s view is advocated by P r o f . F u l l e r t o n . Consequently, P r o f . Fullerton believes that v . 2 2 may be a .genuine reproduction of an a r g u m e n t used by Rabshakeh, i f R a b s h a k e h ' s address was delivered towards the end of Hezekiah's reign. 5 8 E v e n if we g r a n t that v.22 could not have been an a r g u m e n t used by Rabshakeh, it does not necessarily imply that the whole address is unhistorical. I t is not possible to impugn the whole by impugning one element, because t h e r e always r e m a i n s the possibility that this element was added at a l a t e r time. T h i s possibility is strengthened Dy the f a c t that in the summaries of R a b s h a k e h ' s address in C, this a r g u m e n t is omitted. A c c o r d i n g to B , Rabshakeh presented three a r g u m e n t s to prove that there is no hope f o r the J u d e a n s . ( 1 ) T h e y can not depend upon E g y p t for assistance, because Eigypt is a bruised reed ( v . 2 1 ) , and they can not do without E g y p t , because they have no cavalry of their own ( v v . 2 3 , 2 4 ) . (2) Tticy can not depend upon their God, because their God is wroth, s i n c e H i s places of worship have been destroyed ( v . 2 2 ) . ( V . 2 5 may be considered as a continuation of the a r g u m e n t presented in v.22. T h e A s s y r i a n would have been very much surprised to learn that a J u d e a n had a n n o u n c e d that the God of the J u d e a n s would bring about the destruction of J u d a h . T h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y prediction would be more intelligible to him, i f he assumed that such a s t r a n g e decision o f a national deity had been caused by the destruction of that deity's places o f worship, than if he tried to associate that decision with the motivating causes a n n o u n c e d by the prophet). ( 3 ) T h e y can not depend upon their God, because H e is no match for the god of A s s y r i a - A s u r . No other god has been able to resist successfully the god of A s s y r i a — t h e r e is no reason f o r the J u d e a n s assuming that it would be different in their case (vv.30, 3 3 - 3 5 ) . I n C, only the last a r g u m e n t is presented. I s it not possible that this, t h e r e f o r e , was the a r g u m e n t actually used by Rabshakeh, and that the other a r g u m e n t s represent later a d d i t i o n s ? I t is not possible to use as an a r g u m e n t in f a v o r of this assumption the inconsistency between arguments 2 and 3, because it is j u s t as easy to assume that Rabshakeh did not sense the delightful i n c o n s i s t e n c y , as it is to assume that the ^ U 0 e l . a b o r a t e d the address and added i m a g i n a r y a r g u m e n t s , did not sense it. ( I he C h r o n i c l e r c o n c e n t r a t e s on a r g u m e n t 3, but he also includes a r e f e r e n c e to the second argument. S i n c e the Chronicler is evidently summarizing a t e x t corresponding 'S, t h e . * , e x ' found m our book of K i n g s , no i n f e r e n c e s can be made on the basis o f Chronicles). ™Cf. I s . X X X I 1-3. "»But it is very possible that the A s s y r i a n s were well informed o f everything that was going on m all their vassal states, and that a detailed report of I s a i a h ' s s t r a n g e predictons had been sent on to Nineveh by the A s s y r i a n representatives in Jerusalem. I f so, it would not have been impossible for tile A s s y r i a n to use this seemingly strange a r g u m e n t , since he knew that his hearers would u n d e r s t a n d that he was alluding to u t t e r a n c e s made by one of their own prophets. raI placed vv.26 and 27 in brackets to indicate that they are not part of Rabshakeh's speech. 82Cf. L i d z b a r s k i — A l t a r a m a i s c h e U r k u n d e n aus Assur. ( W . V . D . O . G . v . X X X V I I I ) " B e i den A u s g r a b u n g e n in A s s u r wurden mehrere U r k u n d e n in A r a m ä i s c h e r S p r a c h e g e f u n d e n , die all dem 7 J a h r h u n d e r t v.Chr. a n g e h ö r e n . Die V e r w e n d u n g d e r A r a m ä i schen S c h r i f t in Assyrien und Babylonien lässt sich nach der K e i l s c h r i f t t e x t e n und bildlichen Darstellungen, bis in das 9 J a h r h u n d e r t v.Chr. v e r f o l g e n . " I have quoted Lidzbarski's opening paragraph. C f . also C. I. S. P a r t I I v . I C h . I . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to note some of the lionweights discussed bear c u n e i f o r m inscriptions indicating that they were made d u r i n g the reigns of S h a l m e n e s e r , S a r g o n and S e n n a c h e r i b . ( W h e n these lion-weights were first f o u n d by L a y a r d , the bilingual inscriptions a t t r a c t e d considerable a t t e n t i o n - but is was assumed that the Semitic i n s c r p t o n s were P h o e n i c i a n . cf.Rawlinson, T.R.A.S f . X X I (new series I ) p. l S 7 f f . and L a y a r d B a b y l o n and Nineveh ( 1 8 5 3 ) p. 6Ö0ff! ® T h i s passage is difficult regardless whether we consider Rabshakeh's speech as original, or whether we regard it as the composition of an imaginative H e b r e w writer. U n l e s s we resort to the easy way of escaping all difficulties by assuming that it is a gloss of a later w r i t e r , it is hard to meet this difficulty. " C f . I s . X 11. T h e hypothetical boast attributed to S e n n a c h e r i b by I s a i a h ( X 9 - 1 1 ) may be a r e f e r e n c e to this argument of R a b s h a k e h — o r we may assume that this was a c u s t o m a r y a r g u m e n t used by the A s s y r i a n s , and consequently X 9 - 1 1 is not a specific r e f e r e n c e . I f we take for g r a n t e d that the address attributed to Rabshi'seh is an imaginary composition, then it is possible to assume that this a r g u m e n t is an elaboration of I s i a h ' s hypothetical description of S e n n a c h e r i b ' s boast. (Another illustration of the vicious circle.) B 5 Those, who a m e n d the text in accordance with the Septuagint to read that the Hebrew ambassadors were silent, take away the most vivid element f r o m the picture.

Notes

to Chapter

II

Ti

To conceive the people as silent, although impressed, is the s t r o k e of an artist, (i.e. if it is not a n actual p o r t r a y a l of w h a t t r a n s p i r e d ) . I n accordance with S e n n a c h e r i b ' s annals, H e z e k i a h ' s m e r c e n a r i e s , as well a s his regular troops d e s e r t e d , b u t it is not possible to come to a n y conclusion as to when this happened. 66 A . H . N . E . p. 491. c"Cf. Ex. X I I 29; Xu. X X V 3b, 9; I S Y 6 ; I I S X X I V 16. 6S Meinhold—'Die J e s a j a e r z a h l u n g e n , pp. 32ft. «»Iliad I, 39. ^ A c c o r d i n g l y , j u s t as the H e b r e w s a t t r i b u t e d S e n n a c h e r i b ' s f a i l u r e to c a p t u r e Terusalem to the i n t e r v e n t i o n of their God, so the E g y p t i a n s may have i n t e r p r e t e d the Assyrians' f a i l u r e to follow up t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t y a s d u e to t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n of their god (or gods). 71 These six hypotheses do not exhaust all the possibilities. K l e i n e r t ' s discredited hypothesis that A r e f e r s to a campaign of S a r g o n , and B C to S e n n a c h e r i b ' s t h i r d campaign, has been discussed elsewhere. S. Smith (followed by H . R. H a l l ) believes that A r e f e r s to the campaign of 701 and B C a n d H e r o d o t u s 141 to a campaign of E s s a r h a d d o n . C. A . H . v . I l l pp. 74ft. 72 The A s s y r i a n annalist deliberately confined his a t t e n t i o n to the first p a r t of the campaign, because it was in his interest to do so. Moreover, he did not n a r r a t e his story in correct chronological sequence, in order to give the impresson that he had described the entire campaign. 73 The A s s y r i a n annalist did not wish to admit that the campaign ended a b r u p t l y , and that the r e t u r n to Assyria was conditioned, not by S e n n a c h e r i b ' s desires, but bycircumstances beyond his control. M o r e o v e r , in o r d e r to give the impression that S e n n a c h e r i b had a t t a i n e d his objectives, he was compelled to change the chronological sequence. T h e r e are some scholars, who believe that the chronological sequence of B a n d A w,as t h e reverse of the o r d e r given in the Bible. Accordingly, S e n n a c h e r i b ended his campaign a b r u p t l y (because of r u m o r s of u n r e s t in Babylonia, ^ of an .advancing Egyptian army, or both) without c a p t u r i n g J e r u s a l e m , but Hezekiah, who had suffered severe losses d u r i n g the campaign, decided to p r o f e s s loyalty to A s s y r i a , a n d sent his tribute to Nineveh. 7J If so, it becomes difficult to explain why the a u t h o r of the K i n g s account, who also made use of the state a n n a l s (vv.14-15) should have failed to include a n y r e f e r e n c e to the a t t e m p t of Hezekiah to provide f o r the d e f e n c e of Jerusalem:. •"Accordingly, all t h e r e f e r e n c e s have the same thing in mind, soiree emphasizing one aspect, and others, the other. Most scholars believe that these r e f e r e n c e s describe the d i v e r t i n g of the w a t e r s of Gihon, which originally flowed into the K i d r o n valley into the pool of Siloam, an artificial reservoir built within the city proper. T h i s was done by m e a n s of a t u n n e l cut through the rock (the Siloam T u n n e l ) . "•'Isaiah's purpose in describing H e z e k i a h ' s e f f o r t s to p r e p a r e f o r a siege, is in j r d e r to contract the reliance of the people of J u d a h on h u m a n means, and their f a i l u r e to t r u s t in G o d ; w h e r e a s the Chronicler pictures Hezekiah as p u t t i n g his chief t r u s t u p o n Divine assistance, " f o r there is a G r e a t e r with us than with him; with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord, our God, to help us, and to fight our battles." T7 ln accordance with this theory, the first disappointment of the Allies consisted in the late arrival of t h e E g y p t i a n c o n t i n g e n t , a n d in the f a c t that Sennacherib was not stopped until a f t e r Sidon and Ashkelon had fallen. Their second disappointment would n a t u r a l l y have been the outcome of the battle of Eltekeh. 78 As has been indicated elsewhere, some scholars believe that S e n n a c h e r i b allowed Hezekiah to buy his pardon, because he was unwilling to u n d e r t a k e such a f o r m i d a b l e task as the siege of J e r u s a l e m (see p. 19). I t is h a r d l y likely that J e r u s a l e m was an impregnable f o r t r e s s , if the preparations for defence were l e f t for the last m i n u t e . J n T h e advocates of the theory of a second campaign usually ascribe all of Isaiah's a n t i - A s s y r i a n prophecies to the time when that campaign was m a d e . It is not probable that all these prophecies were made d u r i n g a verv short interval. Nevertheless, it is i m p o r t a n t to note t h a t such an assumption is not altogether impossible. v e r y i m p o r t a n t reason f o r doubting the correctness of the assertion t h a t Hezekiah's defence m e a s u r e s were u n d e r t a k e n at the last moment, irrespective of the time that t h e y w e r e made, is that the n a t u r e of H e z e k i a h ' s u n d e r t a k i n g s , the building of an i n n e r wall as well as an outer wall (some archaeologists believe that these walls have been identified) and an a q u e d u c t , docs not correspond with the f r e n z i e d e f f o r t s involved in a last m i n u t e a t t e m p t to meet an emergency. P e r h a p s the r u d e c o n s t r u c tion of the .'Siloam t u n n e l may be presented as evidence in f a v o r of the a c c u r a c y of the Chronicler's statement. (Incidentally, if this tunnel was built d u r i n g the stress of war, it does n o t indicate that the people of J u d a h were as deficient i n ' e n g i n e e r i n g skill .as is generally supposed.) M X o t necessarily immediately a f t e r . Cf. I I Chr. X X I X 3ft". * 2 No i n f e r e n c e can be d r a w n f r o m the f a c t that of all that t r a n s p i r e d d u r i n g Hezekiah's reign, the R e f o r m a t i o n is the first t h i n g described in K i n g s ; because I I K X V I I I 3, 5-7 are a s u m m a r y of the e n t i r e reign and I I K X V I I I 4 was probably introduced w h e r e it was, in order to support the contention of v 3 ha Cf. I I K X I X 8. M V . 1 9 m a y be taken as an indication of the Chronicler's feelings.

CHAPTER

III.

THE PROPHECIES OF

ISAIAH

Contemporary prophecy has for a long time been recognized as a very important source for the reconstruction of Biblical history. In view of the important role played by the prophet Isaiah during the crisis of 701, his prophecies would furnish us with valuable clues for the solution of many unsolved problems involved in the reconstruction of the story of that crisis, provided it would be possible to establish definitely which prophecies were delivered by him, and to determine the circumstances under which a given oracle was spoken or written. Unfortunately, such is not the case. We are certain that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is a post exilic work; we are also reasonably certain that even the first part (Ch. I—xxxix) when taken by itself, represents a post exilic compilation of independent collections of Isianic prophecies. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that a number of the prophecies contained in some of these collections are not Isaiah's. There are a number of prophecies (and passages) concerning which there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars. Some scholars are convinced that these prophecies are genuinely Isianic; others are equally certain that they are post exilic, and still others, while admitting that in their present form there is ground for suspecting their authenticity, maintain that they are derived from or based on genuine Isianic oracles. Some of the theories concerning Sennacherib's invasion are based on the prophecies belonging to this category. The attitude of scholars towards a given theory will naturally depend upon their attitude towards the passage upon which it is based, and vice-versa, the attitude of scholars towards a given passage will frequently depend upon the theory that they are ready to entertain. Furthermore, the arrangement of the book of Isaiah is not chronological, consequently, the date of every prophecy must be determined on the basis of internal evidence. Unfortunately, the criteria which guide scholars in deciding to which period to assign a given prophecy are not definite. As a result, there is again considerable disagreement amongst scholars. Sometimes, we are

A Critical

Source

Study

79

confronted with a vicious circle. The criterion used by a particular scholar in determining whether a given prophecy belongs to a certain period of the prophet's career depends on a hypothetical reconstruction of the historical circumstances of that period. Other scholars, starting out from different premises, reach different conclusions concerning this prophecy. They may then use this oracle (or rather their interpretation of it) as a means of discrediting the hypothesis in question. The prophecies which have been assigned by most scholars to the period of the Assyrian crisis ( 7 0 5 - 7 0 0 ) divide themselves into two groups: Isaiah anticipates in the one, the destruction of his people; in the other, a great deliverance. The reconciliation of these two groups of prophecies is one of the difficult problems of Isaiah criticism. Some scholars try to meet the problem by placing all the pro-Assyrian prophecies in an earlier period of Isaiah's career (the reign of Sargon) and limiting his prophecies during the crisis of 701 to the anti-Assyrian. Other scholars maintain that the change in Isaiah's views took place during the crisis, and therefore contend that some or all of the pro-Assyrian prophecies belong to the period in which the preparations were made f o r the rebellion ( 7 0 5 - 7 0 1 ) , and that the anti-Assyrian prophecies were delivered while the Assyrians were devastating the country. Those who believe that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, one in 701 and one in 690, naturally argue that the first group of prophecies were delivered by Isaiah during the first invasion and the other during the second. In fact, the advocates of this hypothesis regard the two groups of prophecies representing such divergent views as a confirmation of their theory that there were two campaigns. There is a difficulty with all the attempts at reconciling the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian prophecies by ascribing each group to a different period and by assuming that between these two periods the prophet experienced a profound change of mind, viz.. that in some oracles the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian views are blended together and in their present form, seem to indicate that both views were expressed at the same time. Historic reconstruction based on the oracles of Isaiah will therefore differ in accordance with our manner of dividing the prophecies into independent oracles.

80

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

Here too, there is considerable disparity of opinion due to the fact that every scholar must base his judgment on vague criteria, which are subjective rather than objective. Another factor, which makes it difficult to build historic theories on the basis of evidence presented by contemporary prophecy, is that the meaning of certain passages is not clear. In one case the construction put on a preposition determines whether the passage should be regarded as minatory or conciliatory. Sometimes the similies used by the prophet are ambiguous in character and allow different interpretations, opposite in character. Sometimes, the difference in construction is due to the fact that one interpreter tries to explain a simile in the light of the entire passage as it has come down to us in the Massoretic Text, whereas the other insists that certain verses are later interpolations and explains the remainder of the passage accordingly. In view of the fact that differences in interpretation based on different answers to the various problems that each prophecy presents lead to differences in historic reconstruction, it is necessary to consider separately all the prophecies which have been ascribed by recent scholars to the time when Sennacherib's invasion or invisions took place, to examine the different theories concerning each prophecy, and to note the bearing of these theories respectively on the problem of our study. Accordingly, the following prophecies will be discussed. (A) C H S . X X V I I I - X X X I I I ; ( B ) x 5-34, xiv 24-27. XVII 12-14; CH. xvi11; (C) X X I I I 1-14, x x n 15-25, xxn 1-15, i 7-9. A.

CH. X X V I I I - X X X I I I . 1

It is usually assumed that the Isianic prophecies contained in this collection were delivered between 705 and 701, from the time that the leaders in Judah began to intrigue with Egypt in preparation for revolt, up to the time of the invasion. If the latter assumption is correct, then these chapters form a very important source from which to derive information concerning conditions in Judah prior to the revolt. It is important, however, to take cognizance of the fact that even if this assumption is correct, there is no way of substantiating it. During the reign of Sargon, there were several periods of unrest, when rebellion was being fomented in Judah, when embassies were

A

Critical

Source

Study

81

undoubtedly sent to Egypt—when it would have been possible for Isaiah to have delivered all or some of the anti-Egyptian addresses found in these chapters. The hypothesis that Judah intrigued with Egypt during the period that culminated in the revolt of Ashdod is confirmed by the fact that Sargon, in describing his campaign against that city, specifically alludes to Judah, together with the Philistines, Edomites and Moabites, sending presents to Pharaoh in order to induce him to join their confederation. 2 It is also possible that the death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah to the throne, may have marked a turning point in Judah's attitude towards Assyria; and that the policy of hostility to Assyria and dependance upon Egypt was inaugurated at the very beginning of Hezekiah's reign. If so, it is possible that some or all of the anti-Egyptian oracles might belong to as early a period as the reign of Shalmeneser, or else, to the early years of Sargon's reign.® The scholars, who believe that the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian oracles could not have been delivered during the same period of the prophet's career, are naturally inclined to favor the above hypotheses. Those scholars, however, who believe that some of the so-called pro-Assyrian oracles were delivered at the same time as the anti-Assyrian, that simultaneously with his warnings to his people, that the shortsighted policy of the Judean leaders would result in a serious calamity for Judah, he was anticipating an overwhelming disaster for the Assyrian hosts, have no interest in assigning the anti-Egyptian oracles to an earlier period. Similarly, those scholars, who believe that Isaiah's attitude towards Assyria underwent a profound change during the invasion, have no reason f o r favoring an early date for these oracles. On the other hand, those scholars, who, in support of the theory that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, maintain that during the crisis of 701, Isaiah was consistently pro-Assyrian and that all the anti-Assyrian oracles belong to a later period of the prophet's life, naturally do not favor the view that all the pro-Assyrian oracles contained in this collection belong to the reign of Sargon or Shalmeneser. They prefer to place some or all during the early years of Sennacherib. If Chapters xxviu-xxxm represent a collection of prophecies delivered during a brief period of time, then all the anti-Egyptian

82

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

oracles belong to the reign of Sennacherib or none does, and the date of all the oracles can be determined by determining the date of one. Scholars are divided concerning this question. Some scholars believe that these chapters represent a collection of prophecies made by Isaiah himself, during one period,' or that a nucleus was prepared by the prophet, and that to this nucleus were added other prophecies by his disciples, containing the t a m e central thought." This collection is assumed to be the product of the order he received to inscribe his views in a book.* There is a difference of opinion concerning the implication of xxx 8.T Some scholars believe that this verse refers to the cryptic message of 7b, others, that it refers to all the predictions of the same character he m a d e at that time. Other scholars not only deny that these chapters contain a collection of prophecies delivered at one time, but maintain that there is no organic relation between the various oracles contained in this collection. 8 They are inclined to explain the unity underlying this collection as being something very artificial. From the fact that so many oracles start with the word MH they infer that these chapters represent a collection of Mil prophecies and that the prophecies have no organic relation with one another. 1.

X X V I I I 1-4

From the above discussion, it is clear that it is not necessary to assume that all the prophecies contained in these chapters were delivered at one time. In fact, the contrary assumption is more natural, for in all likelihood, xxvm 1-4 was delivered before the destruction of Samaria,* and it is not probable that all the other prophecies contained in these chapters belong to so early a period. The inclusion of xxvm 1-4 in this collection does not necessarily prove, however, that this collection does not consist of prophecies delivered during one short period (either during the reign of Sargon or Sennacherib), because it may be argued that the oracle against Samaria was repeated,10 on a later occasion, as a warning to the leaders in Judah that if they persist in following their headlong policy, they would meet the fate of Judah's sister kingdom." Several reasons may be attributed to the prophet for repeating an oracle—he may have been interested in emphasizing

A

Critical

Source

Study

So

the similarity of conditions in Jerusalem to those that prevailed in S a m a r i a , shortly before the f a l l of that city; or. he may have been motivated by the desire to remind his hearers that on a previous occasion, he had made a grim pronouncement, that that prediction had been only too realistically fulfilled, in order that his hearers should take more seriously the warning he was about to give them, x x v m 7 tends to confirm this view, because X X V I I I 7 ff. seems to depend on x x v m 1-4. Wellhausen and Ehrlich go a step further. They deny the necessity to presume that x x v m 1-4 was originally delivered at an earlier period. They believe that this oracle refers to Jerusalem and not to S a m a r i a . The reference to S a m a r i a they interpret as a figure of speech. Kittel disagrees with this view, because the description suits S a m a r i a so much better than Jerusalem. This argument does not possess very much force, because Isaiah, in symbolizing Jerusalem as S a m a r i a , may have consistently carried his figure through by using description appropriate to the latter city. Another argument that has been suggested as proof of an early date f o r the original delivery of this prophecy, is the vague reference to Assyria, it is not likely that Isaiah would have referred to the powerful Assyria in this vague manner, after Palestinians had so vividly experienced Assyrian power and cruelty. 2. X X X I I

9-14

Scholars, who believe that during the crisis of 701, Isaiah was awaiting the visitation of Judgment, not only upon his own people, but also upon the Assyrian invaders, prefer to regard x x x n 9-14 as an earlier o r a c l e . " In this prophecy, the prophet anticipates a thorough devastation of the entire country, together with the destruction of Jerusalem. It does not contain any reference to an ultimate disaster to Assyria. Can we assume that only a short interval of time separates this oracle from the anti-Assyrian oracles, and that during this brief period, Isaiah underwent a profound experience which led him to revise his philosophy of H i s t o r y ? In other words, can we assume that x x x n 9-14 represents Isaiah's attitude between 705-701 and that all the prophecies containing predictions against Assyria were made during the last stage of Sennacherib's camp a i g n ? Or, is it necessary to assume that the two kinds of proph-

84

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

ecies can only be reconciled with one another, if we assume that there were two crises; that during the first, Isaiah delivered those prophecies in which is described the doom of his own people, and during the second, those describing the doom of Assyria? 3. XXX 27-33 This last hypothesis is particularly helpful, in reconciling Isaiah xxx 27-33 with the anti-Judah oracles. In this oracle there is no reference to the fate of Judah—the poem concerns itself only with the exaltation and outbursts of joy that will break forth, when the Lord will appear to visit His judgment upon the hated enemy. But, because of the lack of sobriety, many scholars have questioned the Isianic genuineness of this oracle." With this view, concur not only those scholars who find it difficult to harmonize this oracle with other oracles attributed to the period when Sennacherib's third campaign took place, but also scholars who believe there were two campaigns.11 4. XXIX 1-8 AND CH. XXXI Whether we favor the view that all the anti-Judean predictions were made before a given point in time, and all the anti-Assyrian after that point, or that Isaiah was expecting the punishment of Assyria at the same time that he was anticipating Judah's going through the crucible of suffering, depends in large measure upon our attitude to xxxix 1-8 and to CH. xxxi.1B If we agree with Skinner that "the threat of disaster to Jerusalem is so intimately blended with the hope of her deliverance, that it is extremely difficult to disentangle them," then we must accept his conclusion "that these passages reflect the tension in Isaiah'« mind at one point of his career—the conflict between a 'fearful looking for of judgment' even to the uttermost, and the assurance of ultimate salvation of what was good in Israel." Scholars, however, who are unwilling to accept this conclusion, refuse to accept his premise.16 By separating the passages of promise from the passages of threatening, they give to these passages a new complexion, which makes it possible to place upon them an altogether different construction.1'

A

Critical

Source

Study

85

Duhm regards xxix l-4a as the Isianic oracle, and vv. 5-7 w as a supplement on the part of the editor, who did not wish to leave the threat to Zion, God's city, without consolatory conclusion. C H . X X X I he conceives as a series of unrelated fragments rather than as a continuous prophecy. Vv. 1-3, when taken by themselves, represent an anti-Egyptian oracle similar in character to xxx 1-17; vv. 4, 5, 8, 9 which promise God's protection of Jerusalem and predict the destruction of Assyria through God's Personal intervention Duhm places in the same period of Isaiah's prophecies as xxx 27-33. 1 ' Marti reaches a similar conclusion, but his analysis is different. By limiting xxix 1-8 to vv. l-4a, 5c, 6 and omitting vv. 5, 7, 8, which he regards as later non-Isianic additions, he makes the sudden visitation of God's judgment apply to Judah and not to Assyria. 20 xxxi 1-9 Marti also regards as a composite. Vv. 1-3 he regards as parallel to xxx 1-3. V.4 he interprets as a threat to Jerusalem. The shepherds are the Egyptians. Just as a lion does not let go his booty through fear of the shepherds, so the Lord will not let go Jerusalem because of the noise and lamentations of the Egyptians. The rest of the chapter Marti divides as follows: 5a (minus the first two words niDJi D'lBVS ) 5b, 8a, 9b he regards as a non-Isianic, antiAssyrian oracle, related in character to xxx 27-33. (vv. 8b, 9a he does not regard as a continuation of 8a) ; vv. 6 and 7 he believes to be either an Isianic remnant or a marginal gloss. In either case, he assumes that they have been interposed and that 8a is a continuation of v. 5 . a Those who do not separate the verses containing the anti-Assyrian predictions f r o m those containing the anti-Judean, but regard xxix 1-8 and Ch. xxxi as continuous prophecy, must assign a very early date to Isaiah's conviction that Assyria too must answer before the bar of Judgment, because xxix l b implies that the danger is still very f a r off. The festivals are still being celebrated in the usual manner, and there seems to be no consciousness of danger. In fact, some scholars are inclined to believe that this oracle must have been delivered as early as the reign of Sargon. some time before Judah began to plan revolt." An early date f o r Isaiah's anti-Assyrian prophecies supports the contention of some scholars that I xxxvi 37ff. is a legendary story. If, long before there was any danger in Judah, Isaiah had

86

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

predicted the inviolability of Zion, and if, during the siege, at a time when all hope of saving the city had been given up, this view had been reiterated by the prophet, then a sudden raising of the siege would be interpreted as the realisation of the prophet's prediction, even if the raising of the siege were not accompanied by an annihilation of the Assyrian army, such as the prophet had anticipated. If the story, how Jerusalem had been saved at the very last moment, in accordance with the prophet's predictions, would be told over and over again, people, in the course of time, would begin to believe that his entire prediction had been realised. In view of the fact, that Isaiah had predicted a great catastrophe to the Assyrian army, that this catastrophe would come suddenly and that it would take place on the soil of Judah—at the very moment when the coveted prize was about to fall into the hands of the Assyrian, there might evolve a story of a plague, similar to the one found in the Book of Kings. Such a story would eventually become very deep-rooted and be accepted unquestioningly, even though it would not have an historic basis. This hypothesis is built upon a very logical chain of assumptions. Nevertheless, it does not present a very strong degree of probability. If the story of the plague is entirely legendary, and does not contain an historic kernel, it is hard to explain the coincidence that Herodotus, relying upon Egyptian sources, and altogether unfamiliar with the Hebrew tale should also imply that Sennacherib's army met with a sudden, overwhelming disaster. In the previous discussion, we have seen to what different conclusions scholars can come if they regard a given section as continuous prophecy, or if they divide it into separate oracles; if they regard the section as Isianic in its entirety, or if they look upon certain verses as interpolations of later writers. There will naturally be a similar difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of oracles of which the authorship is in doubt—if Isianic, they have one implication—if non-Isianic, another. Isianic authorship has been questioned concerning the following: xxvin 5, 6 ; xxix 16-24,

xxx 18-26; xxxii 1-8; xxxii 19; ch. xxin. (a) xxviii 5, 6 — i f Isianic, and if connected with xxvin 1-4, then Ninn DV2 m u s t r e f e r t 0 destruction of Samaria. Is it

A Critical

Source

Study

87

likely that Isaiah conceived Judah (together with the survivors of Samaria) as the Holy Remnant, and that he anticipated a Messianic regeneration as the result of the destruction of Samaria? Moreover, is it probable that as early as some time before 722 Isaiah already anticipated an Assyrian defeat?" An affirmative answer to the latter question would have a significant implication for the interpretation of other oracles discussed in this chapter. Most scholars escape this implication because they do not regard these verses as Isianic. ( b ) xxix 16-24; xxx 18-26. Most scholars are agreed that these two oracles are related and that if one passage is assigned to a later period, it is necessary to do so in regard to the other, because they were probably written by the same author. Neither passage contains references to a historic situation later than the time of the prophet, The Isianic authorship has been questioned solely on the ground of linguistic style and thought, i.e., upon the suspicion that the underlying conceptions of the prophecy and that the similes used represent a later age than that of Isaiah. Whenever the authenticity of a passage is questioned on such ground, there is room for difference of opinion and the decision is largely subjective. If xxix 16-24 is regarded as Isianic24 and a sequel to xxix 15, then XXIX 15 implies that Isaiah opposes the Egyptian alliance, not because he is afraid of the outcome of the alliance, but because he appreciates the futility of human effort to accomplish that which it has been purposed to bring about by Divine intervention. Accordingly, the point of view underlying xxix 15ff. does not differ from that underlying CH. xvm, and there is no room for the contention maintained by many scholars that CH. x v m was necessarily written at a later time. In other words, Isaiah must be conceived as anticipating punishment for the Assyrian tyrant at the time that he was busily engaged in denouncing the secret intrigues which were made in preparation for revolt. It becomes necessary, therefore, to ascribe the anti-Egyptian predictions, which do not harmonize with this view to an earlier period. If xxix 16-24 is regarded as un-Isianic, no inferences can be based upon it. (c) x x x n 1-8. Many scholars have questioned the Isianic authorship of this oracle, because the King is idealized less than the ideal king described in ix 1-6 and xi 1-4. This objection has been

88

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

answered by the assumption that in this oracle Isaiah is not referring to a Messianic King, but to Hezekiah. Another answer that has been suggested, is that in this oracle, Isaiah is not concerned with the King, but with the new social order which will follow the destruction of Assyria and the deliverance of Jerusalem. There can be no doubt, that at the time that Isaiah was looking f o r w a r d to the visitation of Judgment upon Assyria, he sincerely anticipated that the Assyrian crisis would culminate in a social regeneration, and that in the new Judah, which would come forth out of the crucible of suffering, justice and righteousness would prevail. 25 Another argument that has been given in support of the theory that this passage is not Isianic, is that the style of vv. 6-8 is not at all characteristic of Isaiah. This argument loses all of its force, if we agree with Duhna that these verses represent a gloss, which has been added by a late editor to a genuine oracle of Isaiah. (D) X X X I I 19. If the forest refers to Assyria and the city to Jerusalem, then this passage, if Isianic, clearly indicates that Isaiah anticipated the humiliation of Jerusalem, simultaneously with the f a l l of Assyria. Most scholars, however, do not regard this verse as Isianic. It certainly does not belong in its present position between v. 18 and v. 20. It is also possible to interpret the forest as a reference to Judah and not to Assyria. Accordingly, this verse contains no allusion to Judgment upon Assyria. (e) CH. x x x m . It is of special importance f r o m the point of view of this study, to determine whether CH. x x x m is Isianic. The tyrant is referred to in this chapter as u i ^ . Those who assume that the tyrant in question is Sennacherib, interpret the appellation as a reference to Sennacherib's demand f o r the surrender of the city, after he had agreed to accept tribute. If it is true that Isaiah was shocked by Sennacherib's failure to comply with the condition of the stipulated agreement, and as a result addressed CH. x x x m to him, then this chapter may be regarded as the turning point in his attitude towards Assyria. 26 In accordance with this hypothesis, u p to that moment Isaiah had not concerned himself with the fate of Assyria. Assyria was to Isaiah the instrument God had chosen to devastate Judah, so that through punishment, Judah might become God-conscious. The relation of God to this tool had not concerned him. Sennacherib's act of perfidy, however, directed the prophet's

A

Critical

Source

Study

89

attitude to the problem. As a result, we have his pronouncement that judgment would be visited upon Assyria (x 5-34). Accordingly, it must be assumed that all the anti-Assyrian prophecies were delivered during the last stage of the campaign, after Sennacherib had received Hezekiah's tribute, and in spite of that fact, had demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. This hypothesis is supported by the explicit statement in v.8, that the tyrant had broken the covenant. The advocates of this hypothesis also use v.7 to support their theory, but the situation implied in v.7 is not clear. To find a reason for the weeping of the ambassadors, and to subsequently use that reason as a support of the hypothesis, is a f a r fetched method of arguing. If this chapter is declared un-Isianic, the whole structure, which has been built upon this chapter as a basis, falls to the ground. Most critics do not regard this chapter as Isianic, on the ground that the style, images and conceptions are not Isianic. The favorite view is that the unnamed tyrant is Antiochus Eupator.' 7 B.

ANTI - ASSYRIAN 1.

PROPHECIES."

X 5-34

Some scholars believe that this prophecy marks the turning point in Isaiah's attitude towards Assyria and that it was delivered at the time that he first became convinced that Assyria too woul3 be subjected to Divine Judgment. When was this decision reached? The answer to this question is of paramount importance for a critical consideration of the oracles of Isaiah, f r o m the point of view of their source value. It would be natural to assume that Isaiah's attention was directed to the problem of Assyria's place in the Providential scheme of History at the time when Israel, Judah's sister kingdom, was destroyed. At that time, he had occasion to observe, at close range, the Assyrian cruel and savage methods of warfare. Moreover, Isaiah would have undoubtedly been profoundly influenced by contemptuous reference to the God of Israel—by the Assyrian placing of that God in the same category as the gods of the other peoples, whom it had conquered. The recognition that Assyria was not conscious of her Divine mission, and that the Assyrian conquests

90

Sennacherib's

invasion

oj

Palestine

were not motivated by a moral purpose, but rather by the lust for power, would have brought the prophet face to face with the problem of justifying the Divine use of an immoral means for a moral end. Consequently, he would have been compelled to reconsider and to re-analyse his philosophy of history. A profounder conception of the Divine relationship to Assyria, "the rod of His wrath", would have naturally developed out of such a reconsideration. The chief objection to this theory is the reference in v. 9 to the capture of Carcemish, which took place in 717. The force of this objection is not as strong as most scholars seem to think, because there is no reason for identifying the allusion with the capture of Carcemish in 717. Carcemish was conquered several times. It was reduced to an Assyrian province as early as 740. A much more powerful argument against 721 as the date of this prophecy is the fact that at the time of the revolt of Ashdod ( 7 1 1 ) , the prophet was anticipating the Assyrian conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia (CH. XX) and his attitude, at that time, was not at all consistent with the psychological change which this prophecy presupposes. It is, therefore, safe to assume that the prophecy wa* delivered some time after 710. either during the reign of Sargon or Sennacherib. In some of the oracles contained within CH. xxvm-xxxni, Isaiah expresses views, which can be reconciled with the view expressed in x 5-34 only with great difficulty. Most scholars, therefore, agree that the prophecy we are discussing, as well as the other anti-Assyrian prophecies, must have been delivered at a later date than those in which he denounces the alliance with Egypt, and predicts the terrible consequences that will follow the attempt to throw off the Assyrian yoke. As has already been shown, there is no way of definitely establishing the date of the anti-Egyptian oracles. Those scholars, who place them during the early years of Sennacherib's reign, while the preparations for the revolt were taking place, must necessarily assume that x 5-34 is later than 702. The advocates of the theory that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, usually presume that Isaiah changed his attitude towards Assyria sometime between the two campaigns. They would,

A

Critical

Source

91

Study

therefore, place this and kindred prophecies in the

first

decade

of the 7th century. Those, who believe that there was only one campaign, claim that Isaiah's change in attitude took place sometime during the invasion. The theory based on CH. x x x m , that this change was caused by an act of perfidy on the part of Sennacherib, has already been discussed. In this connection it is important to note that if this oracle had been motivated by Sennacherib's perfidy, the prophet, instead of laying stress upon Assyrian pride or boastfulness, would have laid it on Assyrian treachery and unreliability. T h e nature of the imaginary speech Isaiah places in the mouth of the Assyrian K i n g makes it much more tempting to assume that the specific circumstance, which occasioned the prophet's outburst of indignation against the Assyrian, was the boastful speech of Rabshakeh. The resemblance between vv. 9-11 and x x x v i 18-20 is too close to be accidental. Moreover, it would be difficult to find a more logical moment for Isaiah to realize that the Assyrian had no appreciation whatsoever of his mission, than the moment in which he heard the boastful Assyrian attribute all his success to his own prowess, and blasphemed the " l i v i n g God of I s r a e l " . Those scholars, however, who doubt the historicity of Rabshakeh's address, can easily reverse the supposition; instead of assuming that X 9-11 is based on an address actually delivered by an ambassador of the Assyrian king, they can assume that the author of the imaginary speech attributed to Rabshakeh, in CH. x x x v i , used the imaginary speech in CH. x as his model. There is another possibility, viz. that vv. 9-11 reflect a customary manner of speech that Assyrian emissaries used in argument, when trying to convince cities to surrender. If so, no inference can be drawn in regard to the historicity of Rabshakeh's address. There is no specific evidence which supports the last theory. The most common assumption is that Isaiah's change of heart took place while Sennacherib was trampling and destroying city after city in Southern Judah. In the hour of his countrymen's grief, there was no room for denunciatory addresses—-he was at one with his people. During those critical moments he conceived a deeper insight into his own philosophy of history. Objection to so late a date for the beginning of Isaiah's anti-Assyrian attitude

92

Sennacherib's

Invasion

oj

Palestine

may be made on the basis of vv. 28-34. In view of the fact that the route described in vv. 28-34 does not correspond with the route actually taken by Sennacherib and his army, this oracle can not be post-eventum. Consequently, it is necessary to postulate that this oracle was composed at the very beginning of Sennacherib's third campaign, at the very latest, during the campaign in Phoenicia. Vv. 28-34, however, do not constitute an integral part of the foregoing. They represent an independent oracle, and there is considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars concerning the relation of this oracle to those that precede it. Some scholars regard X 5-34 as a series of oracles representing one point of view, all of which were delivered within a brief period of time, and welded together, perhaps by the prophet himself, into a literary unity. Other scholars deny not only oratorical unity, but literary unity as well. They regard X 5-34 as a composite of a number of independent oracles, which have very little organic relation with one another." There are some scholars who contend that x 28-34 does not refer to the Assyrians at all. They assume that it was delivered during the crisis of 7 3 5 and that the reference is to the Syro-Ephraimitic armies. If this view is correct, then this oracle has no relation whatsoever to the problem of our study, and can not be used as a means of determining the date of x 5-19. The main support for the last named theory is the opinion of the scholars, who maintain it, that the route is too vividly described to be imaginary. We know the route taken by the Assyrians; we do not know the route taken by the Syro-Ephraimites, therefore if the description is derived from experience, it can not refer to the f o r m e r — it may refer to the latter. Schmidt accepts the premise stipulated in this hypothesis, but he does not accept the conclusion. He agrees with the scholars who entertain this hypothesis, that the description is too vivid to be entirely imaginary—and at the same time he agrees with the scholars who place this oracle at the beginning of Sennacherib's campaign. He believes that the Syro-Ephraimitic hosts followed this route, a very difficult one, but extremely well-suited for a surprise attack. Schmidt thinks that Isaiah portrayed the Assyrians as following this route for the sake of dramatic effect in order to recall the bitter anguish of those days.30 Just as vv. 28-34 present difficulties to the advocates of the theory

A

Critical

Source

Study

93

that there was only one campaign, by necessitating an early date for the anti-Assyrian point of view,31 so w . 28-34 present considerable difficulty to the advocates of the theory that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine.

If the second campaign was

an outgrowth of a campaign in Arabia, Isaiah's description of the Assyrian advance could neither be a description post eventum, nor an imaginary anticipation.

If it is conceded that x 28-34 was an

oracle delivered during the first campaign, then there is no room for the theory that all the anti-Assyrian oracles belong to the second, and that during the Assyrian.

first,

Isaiah was consistently

pro-

On the other hand, if the concession is not made, the

northern route is a challenge, which demands explanation. The problem does not exist for those who favor the view discussed above, that Isaiah is not referring to the Assyrians, but to the Syrians and Ephraimites. The difficulty also disappears for those who accept the radical suggestion put forth by Gray. Gray separates vv. 33 and 34 from 28-32. As a result, vv. 28-32 ceases to be a part of an anti-Assyrian oracle. Instead of the usual assumption, that the prophet is trying to show how Assyria will be foiled at the last moment, when it is almost within reach of the coveted prize, in accordance with Gray's analysis of the oracle into two separate, distinct parts, it becomes possible to assume that Isaiah is interested in describing the rapidity with which Assyria will accomplish its purpose, or else to arouse his countrymen to a sense of the immediacy of the danger. In either case, the oracle belongs to the period when Isaiah still had confidence in the power of Assyria, and was anticipating a successful suppression of the rebellion. 2.

X I V 24-27

Some scholars believe that this is a misplaced fragment, that it was originally part of x 5-34. Those who regard x 5-34 as a series of related oracles, would be inclined to regard this as another independent oracle delivered during the same period, as the oracles contained in x 5-34. Regardless of any theory one may accept concerning the relation of this oracle to x 5-19 (or x 5-34) , it must be admitted that this oracle was delivered at some time subsequent to Isaiah's decision, that Assyria would receive

94

Sennacherib's

Invasion

oj

Palestine

Divine punishment f o r its transgressions. In this oracle, the antiAssyrian view is expressed in clear a n d u n m i s t a k a b l e terms. T h e most i m p o r t a n t element in this p r o p h e c y is the explicit reference to J u d a h , as the place where Assyria w o u l d meet its doom. T h e most n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the p r o p h e t ' s assumption, that Zion would be chosen by the L o r d f o r the c o n s u m m a t i o n of His P l a n , is that the p r o p h e t believed, that if the Assyrian catast r o p h e occurred in J u d a h , it w o u l d be most m a n i f e s t to all the nations of the world, that this catastrophe h a d come as a result of the will of the Lord, the God of J u d a h . " T h e p u r p o s e , which the L o r d has p u r p o s e d " , (v. 26 & 27) m a y be construed as r e f e r r i n g to the b r e a k i n g of the strong a n d a r r o g a n t Assyria as a demonstration to m a n k i n d of the Divine role in h u m a n history. T h e above e x p l a n a t i o n p r e s u p p o s e s a p r i o r i reasoning, a subjective desire as the basis of Isaiah's conviction, that the visitation of J u d g m e n t u p o n Assyria would take place in J u d a h . If we assume that Isaiah reached his conclusion e m p i r i c a l l y , that this oracle represents a rationalization of experience, then we must place u p o n this oracle a somewhat different construction. If this oracle was delivered d u r i n g the late stages of Sennacherib's c a m p a i g n , at the time when Sennacherib's army was devastating the entire country, then the e m p h a s i s u p o n the h i l l s of J u d a h , as the place where the Assyrian would meet his doom, m a y have represented an attempt, on the part of the p r o p h e t , to console his discouraged c o m p a t r i o t s . If Isaiah h a d previously delivered a n u m b e r of anti-Assyrian oracles," as a result of which the people h a d been expecting f o r some time a m i r a c u l o u s m a n i f e s t a t i o n of Divine power, the c a p t u r e of Lachish, the b l o c k a d e of J e r u s a l e m , the despoliation of the entire country, must have been very disheartening to the p e o p l e of J u d a h . T h e promise of a deliverance must have a p p e a r e d to them as a vain promise, a n d t h e r e was p r o b a b l y little h o p e of escaping the f a t e of the allied Philistine cities. U n d e r such circumstances, it w o u l d have been very n a t u r a l f o r the p r o p h e t , confident that he h a d p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d the Divine p l a n of History, and still convinced that the f a t e he h a d predicted f o r the Assyrians would overtake them, to stress the hills of J u d a h as the place where the Assyrian j u d g m e n t would take place, in o r d e r to indicate that that which is h a p p e n i n g to

A Critical Source

Study

95

Judah is not contrary to the Divine plan, but rather a part of the plan—a prelude to the great event. In other words, it may be argued, that the "purpose, which the Lord has purposed", is a two fold one,—that it refers to the punishment of Judah, as well as of Assyria,—that the reason why Assyria shall be broken in the land of Judah, is in order to bring about the realization of the first before the second. This interpretation might be favored by those, who believe that some of the minatory prophecies were delivered at the same time as the anti-Assyrian. There is no intimation, however, that the "purpose" is intended to imply a double signification; consequently, no one can contend, that this oracle supports that view in any way or presents any special difficulty to those who believe that the prophecies, in which Isaiah predicts the ravaging of Judah, belong to an earlier period than those, in which he predicts an Assyrian catastrophe. 3.

XVII 12-14

There is considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars concerning this short oracle. Some do not separate vv. 12ff. from the preceding. If so, the people, whose gruesome fate is so vividly described, are the Syrians and Ephraimites, and this oracle has no bearing on the problem of this study. It is more natural, however, to assume that the reference is to the Assyrian hosts, than to the Syrians and Ephraimites. Among the scholars, who accept the latter view, some are inclined to regard vv. 12ff. as an introduction to CH. XVIII,K whereas others maintain that xvni 1 is undoubtedly the true beginning of an oracle, and xvn 14 a natural ending, and therefore regard these three verses as an independent oracle, or as a fragment of an independent poem. As for the date of this oracle, there is room for a wide range of difference of opinion. It may be assumed, that Isaiah hears the noise of the Assyrian army in his imagination, while the Assyrian army is still very far off, or else, en route to Palestine. It may also be assumed, that the invading army is already in the land," and that Isaiah's simile is based on the impression, that the Assyrian army made upon him when viewed from close range. It

96

Sennacherib's

invasion

of

Palestine

may also be assumed, with an equal degree of reasonableness, that this oracle is not a prediction, but a post-eventum comment, in which the prophet portrays, in a few bold strokes, the great contrast in the Assyrian hosts56 before and after the terrible catastrophe described in II Kings xix 35. To those who accept the last interpretation, this oracle would be a confirmation of the historicity of the story of the plague. On the other hand, those scholars, who are not ready to impute any historic value to this story, can point to this passage as the source f r o m which the legend developed." They can argue that Isaiah's implication, that the destruction of Assyria would be very sudden (one night), intended for dramatic effect, was taken literally by later generations, and became the basis for the belief, that the Assyrian hosts were annihilated in one night by a terrible plague. We have already seen how such an evolution might have been possible, despite the sufferings which the Judeans endured as a result of Sennacherib's invasion, if the sudden raising of the siege was regarded at the time, as a vindication of the prophet, who, throughout the crisis, had boldly proclaimed the inviolability of Zion. There is a school of Bible students, who regard all literal fulfillments of prophetic predictions with suspicion. They believe that either the predictions have been tampered with, in order to make them conform with the course of events, or vice-versa. It is important to note that the prediction in this oracle is very vague, and that the relation between the prediction and the story of the plague is implicit, rather than explicit." 4.

CHAPTER XVIII

This prophecy does not contain any direct allusions," consequently, its meaning is not clear. The most common assumption in regard to the background of this prophecy is that Isaiah is addressing Ethiopian" ambassadors, who have come to Jerusalem, in order to proffer assistance to Hezekiah, in his struggle against Assyria. Isaiah respectfully declines this offer, because human assistance is not needed. Judah is about to receive Divine assistance. The inhabitants of the entire world 40 are called upon to witness the spectacle, when the mighty, seemingly invincible Assyria will fall, through Divine intervention."

A Critical Source

Study

97

In accordance with the above interpretation, Isaiah stresses in this prophecy the same thought, as he does in the anti-Egyptian oiacles considered previously, viz., the futility of reliance upon human assistance. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference in his attitude towards Ethiopa and Egypt. In the one case, his tone is respectful; and in the other, contemptuous. It is possible to explain Isaiah's difference in attitude by assuming that the antiEgyptian oracles were delivered some time prior to the Ethiopian conquest of Egypt, during the period of Egypt's weakness under the rule of the Delta dynasts, and that this prophecy was delivered some time after that event. If we accept Breasted's date for the accession of Shabaka (712), then Isaiah's attitude during the revolt of Ashdod (711) as revealed in CHAPTER XX, does not conform with the view that Isaiah's attitude towards the Nile country changed as a result of Shabaka's conquest. The last objection can easily be met by the assumption that the change of attitude did not take place at the beginning of Shabaka's reign, but sometime during the reign. Isaiah may have remembered the conquests of Piankhi and his failure to maintain his control of either lower or upper Egypt, after his retirement to his own capital, Napata, near the fourth cataract; and as a result, have anticipated during the early years of'Shabaka's rule, a similar collapse of the centralized government, and a return to the division of authority between rival struggling dynasts. Those scholars, who believe that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine, are inclined to place some of the oracles stressing Egypt's weakness as late a* 705-702 and to assume that this prophecy was delivered during the reign of the powerful Tirhakah (694-667 or 689-662). Is it possible to determine the most probable date for the delivery of this prophecy, on the basis of internal evidence? Is Isaiah addressing an imaginary embassy, or is he dealing with a real historic situation? In favor of the former view, it may be argued, that had Isaiah been addressing his remarks to foreign ambassadors, he would have made specific mention of his declining the proffered assistance, and he would have described his reasons for doing so more explicitly. Since Isaiah was not an official spokesman for Hezekiah, it was not his business to accept or to decline. Consequently, his remarks to the ambassadors may be construed

98

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

as advisory suggestions to King Hezekiah, and to the Judean officials. Such suggestions, however, necessitate the presupposition, that there were Ethiopian ambassadors in Jerusalem at the time that this prophecy was delivered. If so, what assumption can be made concerning the occasion, which prompted the sending of an Ethiopian embassy to J u d a h ? There are several possibilities, in addition to those discussed above. (a.) In 705, the year of Sargon's death, in order to induce Hezekiah to join the other Palestinian states in a revolt against Assyria. For those who place the anti-Egyptian oracles contained in CH. XXVIII-XXXIII during the reign of Sargon, this answer may be acceptable; but for those, who place some of these oracles in the period during which the plans for the revolt were being made, this answer would imply that CH. XVIII and these oracles were synchronous. It has already been noted above, that there is a very decided difference in the tone, in accordance with which the Nile country is alluded to—consequently, it is difficult to believe that CH. XVIII and the anti-Egyptian oracles found in Chapters XXVIII-XXXIII were delivered during the same period. (b.) After Sennacherib's campaign in the West had started, but during a very early stage, while Sennacherib was still in Syria or Northern Palestine. In accordance with this assumption, the purpose of the embassy was to promise aid. Many scholars favor this view, because the calm tone of the prophet, and the lack of passionate indignation, which marks so many of his other utterances during the crisis, seem to imply that this prophecy was delivered at a time, when there was no imminent danger, long before the tramp of the Assyrian hosts had been heard in Judah. Nevertheless, in this oracle, we see the prophet already fully convinced of the ultimate outcome of the invasion. Is it safe, on the basis of the above assumptions, to decide that Isaiah reached the conclusion expressed in his anti-Assyrian oracles, some time before the Assyrian invasion of Palestine, or else, during a very early stage of that invasion, long before the blockade of Jerusalem? Those who favor this view, can present a different explanation than that suggested above, for the respectful references to the country from which the ambassadors came, so markedly different from the contemptuous allusions to the Nile country in the anti-

A Critical

Source

Study

99

Egyptian oracles. They can argue, that in the anti-Egyptian oracles, Isaiah was trying to dissuade his countrymen f r o m revolting; that Isaiah knew that the war party based their hopes for success upon the assistance they would receive from Egypt, and that therefore, the most effective counter-argument he could give to the war party was to stress the weakness and impotence of Egypt. The mission of the Ethiopian ambassadors, on the other hand, was not to stimulate revolt,—the revolt, in accordance with this hypothesis, was already an accomplished fact; their purpose was benevolent, to promise Hezekiah assistance in his hour of need; there was no reason, at this time, for Isaiah to be indignant or scornful. He was ready to decline the Ethiopian offer, not because of any objection to the Ethiopian attitude, but because he regarded all human assistance as superfluous. ("Asshur would fall with the sword, but not of m a n " ; ) there was no reason, therefore, why the Ethiopians should not be addressed in diplomatic, courteous language. (c) After the battle of Eltekeh. Most scholars refuse to entertain this answer as a possibility. Nevertheless, this answer is by no means, an impossible one. For those scholars, who believe that at Eltekeh, Sennacherib met only a small contingent of Egyptian and Ethiopian troops, and that upon the approach of a new Ethiopian army, under the leadership of Tirhakah the nephew of the King Shabaka, Sennacherib retreated, it would be a confirmation of the correctness of their interpretation, if it could be proven that, after the battle of Eltekeh, Shabaka sent ambassadors to Hezekiah, informing him that he was sending a second army to his assistance. If CH. xvm is a prophecy uttered after the defeat of the Allies at Eltekeh, the calm tone of the prophet is quite remarkable, and represents an eloquent testimony to the intensity of his faith in his own reading of the Divine Plan of History. It is very largely on account of this tone, and because of the absence of any indication that Judah was facing a crisis, that most scholars regard the supposition that the Ethiopian embassy was sent after the battle of Eltekeh, as an untenable one. If we accept the second answer, and in vv. 4-6 to mean that before the Lord upon the Assyrian army, He will calmly to carry out its designs at the expense

if we interpret the figures will carry out His design look on and allow Assyria of the helpless Judeans, 42

100

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

then we must conclude that even before the Assyrian devastation of Judah began, Isaiah already anticipated a period of intense suffering for Judah, and had predicted that the Assyrian disaster would come at the height of the Judean crisis, at the very last moment, when all hope of deliverance had been given up. In accordance with this interpretation, it is not necessary to postulate that at one time Isaiah was pro-Assyrian, and at another time anti-Assyrian. It is very possible, that to Isaiah, these two groups of prophecies were not contradictory, but supplementary. The suffering of the Judeans at the hands of the Assyrians, was as necessary a part of the Divine scheme, as the ultimate frustration of the Assyrian design to annihilate the Judean state. We may assume, that during the early stages of his career, he interpreted the Assyrian advance, as a means that God had chosen to punish sinful peoples; that after a time, he became convinced that Assyria too is responsible to God and that its day of Judgment is bound to come; that when he began to feel that that day was drawing near, he made that thought central in his prophecies, but that he did not deviate from the central thought of his earlier prophecies, viz., that Judah must go through the crucible of suffering, in ordei that there may evolve a Holy Remnant. Accordingly, there is no stage of Isaiah's career, at which it is possible to say, "He is no longer troubled by doubts of his people's moral condition." Those scholars, who are unwilling to accept the above conclusion, do not need to accept the premises upon which it is based. In fact, by starting out with the premise, that the anti-Assyrian point of view developed during the crisis, they would conclude, that this oracle could not have been delivered before the danger was imminent. The calm tone they would explain by the intensity of the prophet's conviction concerning the ultimate outcome of the crisis. The simile, implying that the expected doom to Assyria would take place at the very last moment, they would explain as an attempt on the part of Isaiah to harmonise his prediction concerning the ultimate outcome with existing conditions. We are thus once more confronted with a vicious circle.

A Critical C.

Source

MISCELLANEOUS 1.

101

Study PROPHECIES"

XXIII 1-14.

A N O R A C L E ON T H E DESTRUCTION OF

TYRE.

If it could be proved that this prophecy was delivered in 701, while Sennacherib was engaged in suppressing the revolt in Phoenicia, then this prophecy would become a very important source for the reconstruction of the story of Sennacherib's campaign in Syria and Palestine. It would help to confirm the suspicion expressed in the first chapter of this study, that the failure of the Assyrian annalist to mention Tyre was deliberate, in order to avoid the inclusion of an unfavorable element in his account—the story of an unsuccessful siege. If we regard xxm 1-14, as a prophecy delivered during the campaign, we must presuppose a siege of Tyre. It is not possible to assume that Isaiah pictured, in his imagination, the complete destruction of the joyous city, before an attempt was made to capture the city. This, in turns would tend to strengthen the belief that the Assyrian annalist did not describe the events connected with the campaign in Judah in their proper sequence, in order to avoid revealing the true cause of the difference in treatment accorded to Hezekiah and the leaders of the antiAssyrian party in the Philistine cities. It is not possible, however, to present any convincing evidence, in support of the supposition, that this prophecy belongs to the period with which this study is concerned. The historic allusions are very vague; there is, consequently, room for many different theories concerning the probable background of this prophecy. Some scholars, in trying to determine the historic circumstances which called forth this prophecy, limit themselves to possible situations within the life-time of Isaiah. Other scholars see no reason for such limitation. The linguistic evidence does not favor one view or the other—the style and choice of words are not sufficiently characteristic of Isaiah to indicate clearly that the oracle is Isianic, nor are they sufficiently different from the Isianic, to make it necessary to assume that they are not Isianic. If this prophecy represents a lyrical reaction of the prophet post eventum, it must be a very late prophecy, because Alexander was the first to capture Tyre. Duhm and Marti assume that the

102

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

original poem dealt with the destruction of Sidon, and that through an error of a late supplementer, it was mistaken for an oracle on Tyre. Accordingly, they assume that the background of this prophecy is the frightful chastisement inflicted upon Phoenicia by Artaxerxes Ochus, as a result of which Sidon was almost destroyed. If this prophecy is interpreted as an anticipatory prediction, which was not realized, it may have been composed during Nebuchadnezzar's thirteen year siege of Tyre ( 5 8 5 - 5 7 3 ) , during the same period that Ezekiel's prophecies concerning Tyre were composed;" or, during the reign of Shalmeneser, who, according to Josephus, (quoting Menander whose history, Josephus claims, was based on the archives of Tyre) besieged Tyre for five years; or in 701, during Sennacherib's invasion of Phoenicia. If any one but the last hypothesis is correct, this oracle has no bearing on the problems involved in this study. Those scholars, who believe that this oracle is Isianic, must necessarily limit themselves to the last two suppositions. Many scholars are skeptical concerning the correctness of the assertion that Shalmeneser besieged Tyre. They believe that there is a confusion of the text concerning the name of the Assyrian king, and that it is very possible, that the king originally referred to in the Tyrian source, upon which Menander based his account, was Sennacherib. But there is nothing to back up this assumption, and therefore we cannot build upon it. The fact that there is nothing in the Assyrian sources to indicate that there was an invasion of Phoenicia during the reign of Shalmeneser proves nothing, since no inscriptions from the reign of Shalmeneser have come down to us. 2.

XXII

15-25

A N I N V E C T I V E AGAINST T H E P R I M E

MINISTER

The source value of this oracle consists in the fact that it indicates that some time before Rabshakeh's demand for the surrender of Jerusalem, there occurred a change in Hezekiah's cabinet. During the negotiations with Rabshakeh, Shebna occupies a secondary position; the most important position is held by Eliakim. At the time that this prohecy was delivered, Shebna was the prime

A

Critical

Source

Study

103

minister, and Isaiah was looking f o r w a r d to Shebna's being deposed and replaced by Eliakim. Isaiah's vehement invectives against Shebna and lavish praise of Eliakim, have been used as a basis f o r the inference, that the f o r m e r was the leader of the pro-Egyptian party, whom the prophet denounces so bitterly in the anti-Egyptian oracles, and the latter the leader of the opposing party. Accordingly, special significance must be attached to the change in Hezekiah's cabinet; it must be interpreted as a reversal of policy. It would have been very natural, after the defeat of the allies at Eltekeh, at the time when the entire country was being devastated by the Assyrians, to depose the minister," whose policy had brought about the calamity and to set up in his place the leader of the party that had counselled against the rebellion. For those scholars, who believe that Isaiah experienced a change in attitude some time during the Assyrian crisis, this hypothesis suggests a likely moment f o r such a change. While Shebna and the pro-Egyptian party were in power, it was necessary f o r Isaiah to picture, in darkest terms, the outcome of the policy of the party in power, but when that party was discredited, and a change of administration h a d taken place, and one whom Isaiah favored had been appointed P r i m e Minister, there was no longer any need of denunciations and it was possible f o r him to direct his attention to the place of Assyria in the Providential scheme of history, and to its ultimate fate. It is interesting to note, in connection with the above hypothesis, that in this invective against Shebna, there is not the slightest reference to a pro-Egyptian policy, or to an effort to foment rebellion against Assyria. The only stated offense is his building f o r himself a large sepulchre. Since this offense would hardly have merited such terrible invective, it may be assumed, that this was merely the occasion, that the real offense was the suicidal policy, which he had caused the nation to adopt. It is possible, that an intrigue with Egypt would have merited in the prophet's eyes such an epithet as, "Thou shame of thy lord's house,"—but it is quite a different matter to assert, that this epithet referred to such an intrigue. In fact, if it did. it is hard to account f o r the fact that Isaiah made no specific reference.

104

Sennacherib's

Invasion 3.

XXII

of

Palestine

1-15

A R E B U K E TO T H E INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM

There is a wide divergence of opinion amongst scholars concerning this oracle. Interpreters have come to different conclusions, because some believe it to be a literary unit, whereas others maintain that it contains extraneous elements, which represent interpolations of later writers; and still others assume that it consists of two independent poems. Difference in interpretation is also due to the fact that some scholars attribute a future sense to the verbs in w . 2b, 3, 6 and 7, and therefore regard the oracle as a prediction; whereas others think that these verbs are historical references to events that had already taken place. A third reason for disagreement among scholars concerning the construction to be put upon this oracle, is the fact that the oracle does not contain any clues, which indicate the circumstances prevailing at the time of its delivery. All that can be definitely inferred, is that the people of Jerusalem were engaged in a joyous celebration, of which the prophet did not approve. What was the occasion for the outburst of joy on the part of the populace? Why did not the prophet share the mood of the people? Why did the prophet regard the feasting and revelry illtimed? Why was he provoked by the joy and mirth of the inhabitants of Jerusalem? Why should rejoicing be regarded as a serious transgression, meriting the punishment of death? To none of these questions can a definite answer be given, and if we resort to assumptions, a number of answers are possible. (a.) It is possible to assures, that the celebration marked the consummation of the plans for revolt. V.1M seems to indicate that the people had gone up on their housetops, in order to witness a spectacle." It is very possible that the spectacle in which the people were interested, was the bringing into Jerusalem, as a prisoner, Padi, the deposed King of Ekron, who had refused to join the coalition against Assyria. If we assume that the decision to revolt was accompanied by great rejoicing and joyous celebrations, then we must conclude that the people were confident, that their undertaking would be crowned with success, that the determination to break the Assyrian yoke was regarded as a fait

A

Critical

Source

Study

105

accomplis. The anguish of the prophet on the other hand would indicate, that he did not share the optimism of the people round about him; that he anticipated quite a different outcome of events. I f vv. 2b, 3, 5ff. are taken as predictions, then the forebodings of the prophet were indeed dark. From the point of view of the problems considered in this study, the extreme form of the punishment threatened in v. 14 is of special significance. The difficulty with this interpretation is that vv. 9-11 seem to imply that shortly before this occasion, there was a panic in Jerusalem, and last minute defence had to be resorted to, in order to protect Jerusalem from a siege. Those scholars, who assume that these prose verses were not a part of the original prophecy, but that they were interpolated by a later writer, escape this difficulty. (b.) Another possible assumption is that the celebration took place shortly before the battle of Eltekeh, when the news reached Jerusalem, that the long expected Egyptian troops had arrived. If there was any possibility of catching a glimpse of the advancing Egyptian army, it would have been very natural for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to ascend to their housetops, in order to view the reinforcements, upon which they had based all their hopes. The contrast between the mood of the prophet and that of the people, in accordance with this hypothesis, must have been caused by their respective attitudes towards Egypt. The prophet had no faith in Egypt. He, therefore, could not share the popular assurance of success. He intuitively felt that the Egyptian reinforcements would not make it possible for the Palestinian allies to drive back the Assyrian hosts. As in the case of the former hypothesis, it is necessary to assume that vv. 2b, 3, 5 ff. are predictions, forebodings of the suffering that the people of Judah would soon undergo. If we accept this hypothesis, then we must assume a late date for the recognition, on the part of Isaiah, that Assyria too is vulnerable, and that she would be subjected to Divine punishment. (c.) A third possibility is that the outburst of joy was caused by the news that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute, and to end the blockade of Jerusalem. The news probably reached Jerusalem at a time when all thought of successful resistance to Assyria had been given up; when the people were momentarily expecting a fate similar to that of Samaria twenty years earlier. The Judeans

106

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

had probably not expected that Sennacherib would allow them to buy the security of Jerusalem; they had probably heard of Sennacherib's cruel treatment of Ashkalon and the pro-Egyptian party in Ekron; and they knew that Sennacherib had special reason for wreaking vengeance on Judah. because Hezekiah had played a leading role in fomenting the revolt. Consequently, the news that Sennacherib, contrary to expectation, had agreed to accept tribute, would have very naturally occasioned an outburst of joy. 48 The implication of vv. 2b and 3, in accordance with this hypothesis, is clear." The prophet is trying to remind the celebrants that they have not come together to celebrate heroic deeds. He is calling their attention to the ignominious conduct of the Judean soldiery on the field of battle. What is not clear, however, is the reason for the prophet's pessimism. Is it probable that the prophet realized that the relief afforded by the raising of the blockade was a temporary one, and that the danger which the people had sensed but a short time earlier was not yet over? How can such premonition be accounted for? 6 0 (d.) Another possible interpretation is that the occasion for rejoicing was the final retreat of the Assyrian army. In accordance with this view, the mad exaltation of the people is clear," and the contrasting reaction of the prophet is equally clear, if we keep in mind the prophet's interpretation of History. The course of events had proven the inability of the Allies as well as of Egypt to cope with Assyria. To the prophet, it was clear that the Assyrian disaster had not been brought about by human effort, but through the intervention of God. Consequently, he expected that the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem would have a sobering effect upon the people; therefore, when instead of a spiritual regeneration, he witnessed mad scenes of revelling and rejoicing, he was greatly disappointed. And instead of the comforting speeches he had given during the period of crisis, he now uttered dark forebodings of a crisis even greater than the preceding. The last hypothesis has a great deal in its favor. All the elements of the prophecy, excepting 13d, harmonize with that construction. Accordingly the spectacle, which the people had gone up to see, was the northward march of the disorganized remnants of the once powerful Assyrian army. The joy of the inhabitants of Jerusalem,

A

Critical

Source

Study

107

upon the sudden release of the Assyrian stranglehold, can easily be imagined. It has already been indicated that the anguish of the prophet, who had anticipated for so long a time, that out of the crucible of suffering there would emerge a spiritually changed people, a holy remnant, was a most natural reaction to the exuberance of the people about him, whose conduct did not indicate any trace of appreciation of the spiritual significance of the events that had transpired. The contemptuous reference to the fate of the Judean soldiery during the crisis, is very much in place. The prophet is interested in emphasizing the thought that they can not attribute the deliverance of the city to their own efforts. There is also a logical reason for including the description of the mad efforts to prepare the city for a siege. The prophet wants to compare their failure to trust in Divine assistance, and their reliance upon vain human efforts at the time that the danger was imminent, with their failure to recognize after the danger was over the role that their God had played during the crisis. The second failure is in the eyes of the prophet a more serious offense than the first. Revelry and feasting in place of penitence and contrition of heart is an iniquity which death alone can expiate. If it were possible to prove that this hypothesis is correct, then this prophecy would become a very important source, and only such theories concerning the attitude of the prophet before and during the crisis would become acceptable, as harmonize with the attitude of the prophet after the crisis, that this hypothesis implies. This, however, is not the case. (e) It has been pointed out above, that it is not easy to harmonize 13d with the last hypothesis. In fact, it is not easy to reconcile 13d with any of the hypotheses suggested above. If we take 13d as a starting point, we might conclude that this prophecy was delivered during the blockade, during those dark moments, when it seemed that Jerusalem was nearing its end, when all hope of deliverance had been given up. Accordingly, the revelry and feasting were not indulged in because of a joyous situation, but rather because of reckless desperation—complete abandonment before the grand finale. Such an attitude would have undoubtedly surprised the prophet and called forth his severest censures. To the prophet, who believed that human events were controlled by the Divine Will,

Sennacherib's

108

Invasion

of

Palestine

there was a way of avoiding the seemingly inevitable crash, and that was, repentance, sincere determination to accept the Divine standards in human conduct. Accordingly, there could have been no greater folly than the attitude implied in the words D1D3 HID lnt^l i>i:]N Such folly must necessarily result in the punishment it merits—death. It is hard to reconcile l i b and c with this construction. There are other difficulties; nevertheless, this view is not an impossible one. (/) If we separate 12ff. from the preceding and regard it as an independent poem, it is possible to accept any one of the above hypotheses concerning the first oracle and hypohtesis e in regard to 12ff. If we accept the fifth hypothesis, and if we also assume that Isaiah's warning was heeded, that the mad revelling was stopped and replaced by a true penitence, such as is indicated by the attitude of Hezekiah upon the receipt of Sennacherib's letter, then we may further assume that the change in Isaiah's attitude towards Assyria took place during those bitter moments when all hope of saving Jerusalem had been given up, simultaneously with a psychological change on the part of the entire population. All the five hypotheses mentioned above, take for granted that xxii 1-15 belongs to the period in which Sennacherib's invasion of Judah took place. There is no reason for doing so.M It is possible that during some other period of the prophet's career, the inhabitant* of Jerusalem indulged in a celebration, of which the prophet did not approve. If so, this oracle has no bearing on the problems considered in this study. 4. A

DESCRIPTION

I

OF T H E

7-9 DESOLATION

OF

JUDAH

These verses are undoubtedly a contemporary reference to the devastation of Judah, as a result of a foreign invasion. There is no reference to the enemy by name, consequently, there is no way of determining definitely, to what enemy Isaiah is referring. The description of the conditions in Judah is very suitable for the period during which Sennacherib ravaged the entire country, and it is very tempting to assume that the oracle of which these verses are a part, was delivered during or shortly after Sennacherib's invasion.

A

Critical

Source

Study

109

Some scholars believe that the first chapter is a prophecy or a series of prophecies delivered during the early part of Isaiah's career, shortly after his call. They, therefore, assume that the enemy who had devastated the country are the Syrians and Ephraimites during the Syro-Ephraimitic War. The chief objection to this theory is the word tVl? It is not likely that Isaiah would have used the word QI-|J when referring to Judah's sister kingdom. The force of this objection is strong, nevertheless, at the time that the entire country of Judah was in ruins, because of the havoc and destruction of the invading armies of Israel and Syria, it would not have been impossible to refer to them as "foreigners who are devouring the land." Most scholars believe that this phrase is much more appropriate as a reference to the Assyrians and are inclined to favcvr the former view. It is not necessary to assume an early date for Chapter I ("The Great Arraignment"), because of its position. The fact that Chapter II has an independent superscription indicates that Chapter I may have circulated for a time as an independent fly-leaf. When this fly-leaf was brought together with the other collections of Isianic prophecies to form one collection (CH. I-XII) it was probably placed by the editor as the opening chapter, because of its general character, and because it serves so well as an introduction to the ideas which are characteristic of Isaiah, and to the point of view which motivated him during his entire career. Some scholars have tried to prove an early date for CH. I on the basis of internal evidence. The arguments presented are vague and unconvincing. Moreover, it is not possible to draw inferences concerning the date of one part of the chapter from evidence based on another part, because both were not necessarily delivered at the same time. There are some scholars, who regard the entire chapter as an oratorical unit, but most scholars believe that it contains summaries of oracles delivered at different times. Skinner suggests that these oracles were probably delivered during one period of the prophet's career. That may be, but there is no reason for assuming that it is necessarily so. From the above analysis, it appears, that it is very probable that vv. 7-9 represent the description of an eye-witness of conditions in Judah caused by the events referred to in II K XVIII 13. If

110

Sennacherib's

Invasion

of

Palestine

so, the vivid description of the extremities to which Judah was reduced, form an important supplement to the matter-of-fact statement taken from the royal annals. Furthermore, the correspondence between the picture presented by these verses, and that implied by the Assyrian sources, tends to confirm the historicity of the Assyrian sources. It is important to remember, however, that all conclusions based on these verses are based on an assumption.

Notes

to Chapter 111

111

1 1 have not given any title to this collection of prophecics, b e c a u s e it is difficult to do so. T h e d o m i n a n t motif is t h e d e n u n c i a t i o n of t h e E g y p t i a n A l l i a n c e , b u t it c o n t a i n s also .anti-Assyrian e l e m e n t s , as well as oracles t h a t a r e n o t specifically related to the political s i t u a t i o n in W e s t e r n A s i a and E g y p t d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d half of the 8th C e n t u r y B . C . E . I d e e m e d it a d v i s a b l e , h o w e v e r , to t r e a t these chapters as one u n i t . a P r i s m f r a g m e n t of S a r g o n ( S m . 2022) lines 29-35, d i s c o v e r e d b y G. S m i t h . — Discoveries, pp. 288ff. P u b l i s h e d by W i n c k l e r . K. S- I I pi. 45 b. T r a n s c r i b e d a n d t r a n s l a t e d v. I pp. 188 a n d 189. See J i r k u ' s C o m m e n t to IT K X V I I I , 1-8 (p. 1 7 5 ) . Of special i n t e r e s t is t h e p h r a s e used in r e f e r r i n g to the P h a r o a h " m a l k u la nrusezib i s u n u " (a k i n g who could n o t help t h e m ) cf. I X X X 5.

• I s a i a h ' s w a r n i n g to the P h i l i s t i n e s ( X I V 2S-32) m a y h a v e been m o t i v a t e d by the d e s i r e to p r e v e n t t h a t c h a n g e of policy f r o m t a k i n g place. 4 T h i s d o e s n o t imply t h a t t h e s e s c h o l a r s do n o t recognize t h a t t h e s e c h a p t e r s contain a g r e a t deal of u n r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l . T h e r e is no d o u b t t h a t in t h e i r p r e s e n t form, t h e s e c h a p t e r s c o n t a i n e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l , which was not p r e s e n t in the original collection. 6 See note a b o v e c o n c e r n i n g e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l n o w p a r t of Ch. XXVIIIX X X I I I , w h i c h may not h a v e been p r e s e n t in t h e o r i g i n a l collection prepared by Isaiah's disciples. • I . X X X 8. 7 E w a l d r e g a r d s X X V I I I 1 — X X X 7 as one o r a t i o n ( p a u s e b e f o r e X X I X 1) a n d X X X I I 8 — X X X I I 20 as a s u p p l e m e n t w r i t t e n in r e t i r e m e n t . 8 T h e s e scholars do not d e n y t h a t these c h a p t e r s r e p r e s e n t a l i t e r a r y u n i t ; i. e. that they c o n s t i t u t e d an i n d e p e n d e n t collection b e f o r e they w e r e i n c o r p o r a t e d into t h e book of I s a i a h . (Ch. I - X X X I X ) . ^Before the S y r o - E p h r a i m i t i c Alliance, or a f t e r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of D a m a s c u s , ( o t h e r w i s e t h e r e would h a v e been a r e f e r e n c e to the K i n g d o m of D a m a s c u s ) v e r y likely at t h e t i m e t h a t t h e N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m w a s p r e p a r i n g t o m a k e its f a t a l plunge. 10 I t is n o t n e c e s s a r y to a s s u m e t h a t t h e p r o p h e c y was g i v e n t w i c e ; it m a y be a s s u m e d i n s t e a d , t h a t w h e n the p r o p h e c i e s in r e g a r d to I l e z e k i a h ' s d e s i r e t o m a k e a n a l l i a n c e with E g y p t w e r e first collected a n d e d i t e d , w h e t h e r by I s a i a h or by o n e of his disciples, t h e s e v e r s e s w e r e a d d e d . T h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s inclusion would c o r r e s p o n d to t h e r e a s o n s s u g g e s t e d f o r the a s s u m e d repetition, u I f this o r a c l e h a d been r e p e a t e d , it m i g h t v e r y n a t u r a l l y h a v e been i n c l u d e d in a collection of prophecies m a d e d u r i n g I he period w h e n the oracle w a s d e l i v e r e d thd second t i m e . 12 T h e n a t u r e of t h e p r o p h e c y is such, as to m a k e it difficult f o r t h o s e who m a i n t a i n t h i s view, to s u g g e s t a p r o b a b l e date. Some scholars ascribe it to the s a m e period a s I I I 16-1V 1. O t h e r s c h o l a r s object to t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t X X X I I 9-14 a n d I I I 16 ff. a r e s y n c h r o n o u s . 13 Cf. I s a i a h ' s a t t i t u d e Expressed in X X I I l - l o . W i l k e (p. 89) believes t h a t t h e fierce t o n e is d u e to t h e f a c t t h a t it was e x p r e s s e d at the h e i g h t of t h e crisis. D u h m suggests, on basis of v.29, t h a t t h i s oracle w a s i n t e n d e d f o r I s a i a h ' s disciplcs. " Cf. S t a e r k pp. 137 fT. 15 A crucial c o n c e p t i o n of d a y s of 701. ever w a v e r in

question. U p o n the a n s w e r given it, d e p e n d s in l a r g e m e a s u r e o u r the p e r s o n a l i t y of t h e prophet, a n d his a t t i t u d e d u r i n g the critical Did I s a i a h believe in t h e inviolability of ¿.ion a t all t i m e s ? Did h e t h a t belief ? cf. X X X I I 9-15.

18 I n o r d e r to s t r e s s the vicious circle, I h a v e p u t the p r o p o s i t i o n r a t h e r b l u n t l y . I t might h a v e b e e n f a i r e r to say t h a t most s c h o l a r s can n o t accept Skinner's conclusion, b e c a u s e they can not accept his p r e m i s e . Most scholars do not a g r e e t h a t it w a s " n a t u r a l " ' f o r the p r o p h e t , e v e n if it be a d m i t t e d t h a t he w a s in a semi-ecstatic c o n d i t i o n , to liave m a d e such an a b r u p t t r a n s i t i o n f r o m d e n u n c i a t o r y to consolatory p r o p h e c y .

112

Notes to Chapter

III

17 Staerk s e p a r a t e s X X ^ v i 4 ff. f r o m X X X I 1-3. A c c o r d i n g l y , h e p l a c e s t!he f o r m e r in t h e s a m e period as X I V 2 4 - 2 7 a n d X V I I 12-14 (the destruction of A s s y r i a , in close r e l a t i o n with t h e s a v i n g o f J u d a h — a s u d d e n c r a s h ) .

C h e y n e r e g a r d s X X X I 5 - 9 as a n i n d e p e n d e n t o r a c l e , a n d despite the specific m e n t i o n Tlt^N in v . 8 , he a s s u m e s that t h e r e f e r e n c e is to the S y r i a n s . 4b as v a r i a n t gloss to 4a a n d v. S a s a v a r i a n t gloss to v. 7. 19 V v . 6 a n d 7 D u h m r e g a r d s as a n o n - I s i a n i c i n s e r t i o n , s i m i l a r in c h a r a c t e r to X X X 1 8 - 2 6 ; 8 b a n d 9 not r e l a t e d to 8a. D u h m a d m i t s the possibility o f v. 4 bdlonging to vv. 1 - 3 , but in t h a t c a s e , the figure h a s to be u n d e r s t o o d in an opposite s e n s e . I f . v. 4 b e l o n g s to t h e p r e c e d i n g , D u h m b e l i e v e s t h e r e is a gap b e t w e e n v. 3 a n d 4. F u r t h e r m o r e , D u h m does not b e l i e v e 4b a n a t u r a l sequel to 4a. F r o m t h e a b o v e a n a l y s i s , D u h m c o n c l u d e s t h a t the whole c h a p t e r is not I s i a n i c , but t h e work o f a r e d a c t o r , who i n c o r p o r a t e d g e n u i n e I s i a n i c f r a g m e n t s . 20 I f X X I X 9 ff. is t a k e n as a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f X X I X 1-8, t h e a n a l y s i s o f the l a t t e r m u s t i n d i c a t e a reason f o r I s a i a h ' s h e a r e r s ' a s t o n i s h m e n t (v. 9 ) . I f we a s s u m e t h a t the o r i g i n a l o r a c l e was a p r e d i c t i o n a g a i n s t J u d a h , how did I s a i a h s u r p r i s e his h e a r e r s ? ( H e h i m s e l f r e f e r s to this m o n o t o n o u s r e p e t i t i o n of t h e same theme ( X X V I I I 9 f . ) . I s it by a n n o u n c i n g t h a t t h e i r God, i n s t e a d o f prot e c t i n g J e r u s a l e m , would fight a g a i n s t it ? n C h e y n e ' s a n a l y s i s is s i m i l a r to M a r t i ' s . He regards X X I X 4b, 5, 7, 8 a s non-Isianic. T h e o r a c l e is limited a c c o r d i n g l y to l - 4 a , 6, a p r e d i c t i o n o f a visitation o f J u d g m e n t upon J e r u s a l e m , " i r r e m e d i a b l e r u i n to G o d ' s a l t a r c i t y . " The I s i a n i c part of C h . X X X I C h e y n e limits to 1 - 4 . V v . 5-9 he r e g a r d s as a c o m p o s i t e of Later insertions. H e b e l i e v e s t h a t 8b a n d 9 a do not suit c o n t e x t ; t h a t vv. 6, 7 a r e a m a r g i n a l gloss which r e s e m b l e X X I X 7 , 8.

of

23 It is not n e c e s s a r y to a s s u m e that the R e v o l t w a s decided upon i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the death o f S a r g o n , ( a l t h o u g h the d e a t h o f S a r g o n would h a v e f u r n i s h e d a logical occasion for revolt). I f it is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e i n s t i g a t i o n f o r r e v o l t came through Merodach Balladin ( a c c o r d i n g l y t h e e m b a s s y must h a v e b e e n sent d u r i n g M o r o d a c h B a l l a d i n ' s s e c o n d r e i g n , 7 0 2 ) then t h i s o r a c l e ( i n t e r p r e t e d as a s y n t h e s i s o f a n a n t i - J u d a h a n d a n a n t i - A s s y r i a p r e d i c t i o n ) m a y h a v e b e e n del i v e r e d b e t w e e n 7 0 5 a n d 702. 23Tbe implication o f t h e p h r a s e m j ? ^ c a n o n l y be e i t h e r to b r i n g b a t t l e t o t h e gate of t h e e n e m y , or e l s e to d r i v e out t h e i n v a d e r a n d p u r s u e to the gate. S k i n n e r , who b e l i e v e s t h a t v v . 4 a n d 6 m a y be I s i a n i c , a d m i t s t h a t this p h r a s e would h a v e been " r e m a r k a b l e " f o r I s a i a h . 44 If so, X X I X 2 0 m u s t r e f e r to S e n n a c h e r i b . 2 5 Cf. X X I I 1 - 1 4 , a n d the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f (p. 1 0 5 f . ) . * A c c o r d i n g l y , all t h e a n t i - A s s y r i a n o r a c l e s m u s t be placed a f t e r the t i m e when H e z e k i a h had a g r e e d to pay t r i b u t e . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s , t h e r e f o r e , c a n not be e n t e r t a i n e d by a n y o n e who a s s i g n s a n y a n t i - A s s y r i a n o r a c l e s to an e a r l i e r period. See d i s c u s s i o n o f X 5-34. 27 S o m e s c h o l a r s do not place this prophecy in quit© so l a t e a period. They a s s u m e that t h e t y r a n t r e f e r r e d t o is o n e o f t h e P e r s i a n K i n g s . T h e historic a l l u s i o n s a r e so v a g u e that it is not possible to r e a c h a definite c o n c l u s i o n , o n e way or a n o t h e r . S k i n n e r u s e s t h i s v a g u e n e s s as an additional a r g u m e n t in support o f the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s c h a p t e r is not I s i a n i c . Skinner maintains that during t h e l a t t e r part o f his c a r e e r , I s a i a h is q u i t e e x p l i c i t in his r e f e r e n c e s to A s s y r i a . MIn this group of prophecies, I have included the following: X 5 - S 4 ; X I V 2 4 - 2 7 ; XVII 12-14 a n d Ch. X V I I I . T h e a n t i - A s s y r i a n o r a c l e s c o n t a i n e d in Chapters X X V I I I - X X X I I I ( X X I X 5?ff.; X X X 27-3S; X X X I 4f.; X X X I 8f.; X X X I I I ? ) have b e e n discussed previously.

I have not i n c l u d e d I X 1-6 b e c a u s e it is difficult to e s t a b l i s h the hypothesis s u g g e s t e d by D u h m , W i l k e a n d S t a e r k t h a t t h i s o r a c l e b e l o n g s t o the period o f Sennacherib's invasion. T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t s in t h i s p r o p h e c y , which it would be difficult to h a r m o n i z e with t h e k n o w n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h a t period.

Notes to Chapter

III

113

T h e hypothesis of Kittel that this oracle belongs to the time when the SyroEphraimitic Invasion took place, is easier to defend. I f this oracle is not Isianic, it surely has no bearing on our problem. Many scholars have declared it un-Isianic, but no one has been able to adequately support his contention that it is so, either on the ground of language, or ideology, or historic background. O f the views presented by these scholars, the most likely are that the author was a contemporary of Deutero-Isaiah, who was looking forward to the ending of the exile ( G r a y ) or a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah, who was anticipating a Messiah of the Davidic house. Staerk is probably correct in declaring it Isianic and placing it in the same period as I I 2-4; X I 1-9 and X X X I I 1-5 and 16-20. Staerk includes among the anti-Assyrian oracles X I V 4b-21. T h e prevailing opinion among scholars is that the tyrant referred to is Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus, or a personification of Babylon. I f this prophecy is regarded as Isianic, then it must be assumed that the superscription 4a is an error, and that the tyrant referred to is either Sargon or Sennacherib (or a personification of Assyria). I f it could be proved that this elegy was composed by Isaiah in 705, the year of Sargon's death, then this prophecy would become an important source for the determination of the historic background underlying other prophecies of Isaiah, because it would indicate that Isaiah had reached his anti-Assyrian conclusions as early as 705. On the other hand, if it could be proved that this elegy was composed by Isaiah a s late as «82, the year of Sennacherib's death, it would serve as a refutation of the argument presented by the opponents of the theory that there were two campaigns, viz. that c . 6 9 0 , the time when the second campaign is supposed to have taken place, Isaiah was too old to take an active part in public affairs. (Isaiah began his prophetic career c.740; he was therefore about seventy c.690 and about eighty in 682. It is not probable, although not impossible, that Isaiah was active at such an advanced age). I f the prophecy was not delivered post-eventum, but represents an anticipatory elegy, or if, as Staerk (p. 144 ff.) suggests, ( c f . discussion of X X X 27-38 and X X X V I I 22-29) this elegy was composed by a disciple of Isaiah, no inferences can be drawn on the basis of this oracle. * There is also difference of opinion among scholars concerning the division. Some follow Ewald and divide it as follows: 5-15; 1 6 - 2 3 ; 24-84; others divide it as follows: 5-19; 20-23; 2 4 - 2 7 ; 28-34. The latter division is accepted by most modern scholars. Many scholars maintain that X 5-34 contains oracles, which are not Isianic. Cheyne I B . I v. I I (pp. 48-57), recognizes as Isianic only parts of the first oracle, w . 5-9, 13-14; and part of the third oracle (24-34). H e regards the second as Post-Exilic and the greater portions of the third (24-84) as editorial work. 9 0 Another possible explanation of the vividness of the route described, i» that it refers to an otherwise unknown expedition of Sargon. T h e chief difficulty with this view is that in both Assyrian and Hebrew sources, there is no reference to any such advance on the part of Sargon. T h e theory advocated by Kleinert ( 1 8 7 7 ) and by Sayce (1886) that I I K X V I I I 13-16 refers to a campaign of Sargon is not seriously considered by any of the modern scholars. 1 1 Wilkfl believes that X 28-34 represents Isaiah's earliest anti-Assyrian prophecy. H e assumes that the anti-Assyrian oracles were delivered in the following order: X 28-84; IX 1-6; XVIII; XXXVII 33-35, 30-32; X 5-19; X 24-27; X X X I I I ; X I V 24-27, X V I I 12-14; X X X I 5-9 (after Rabshakeh's appeal to the people on the w a l l ) ; X X X 27-33 (peak of the c r i s i s ) ; X X X V I I 22-29. 12 X V I I I 5, 6 ; X V I I 12-14; X I V 24-27. According to Wilke, the purpose of all three oracles was to free the worried people from fear of the Assyrians and to encourage them to resistance.

Dillman, Duhm; c f . Wilke's interpretation of the passage. 14b seems to imply that Judah has already been devastated at the time that this oracle was delivered. M

u

and

laid

waste

114

Notes to Chapter

III

35 nsiD mm nn rco »mi . . . d^D nn^D Q^QN? (Cf. X X I X 7, 8) Scholars who believe that the allusion in this verse is to Assyria explain X V I I 12a as a reference to the heterogeneous composition of the Assyrian army (contingents furnished by the different subject nationalities) Stade ( Z . A . T . W . 1883 p. 16) regards this passage as un-Isianic, as belonging to a later period, when it was believed that before the Messianic era would be ushered in, all the nations of the world would be assembled in a vain effort against Jerusalem, and then consumed by Divine Power. (Cf. Joel I V 9ff.; Zech. X I I 2ff.) Marti concurs with this view. Cf. I V 26, 30; X X I X 5. M Those who do not believe that this oracle is Isianic, and assign it to a late period, may explain the similarity as a reminiscence of the campaigns of 701. See Stade Z . A . T . W . 1883 p. 16; cf. Marti's interpretation of this passage. 5 7 Note the absence of a direct reference to the pestilence in those oraclea, which have been declared by scholars as late, composed long after the legend embodied in X X X V I I 36 had taken root. 8 8 Except lb. This verse for the following reasons:

does

not

simplify

the

problem,

but

complicates

it,

a. Napata, the capital of Ethiopia, during the 8th century B . C . E . , cannot be spoken of as being beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. ( T h e reference is suitable to the island of Meroes the capital during the 6th C e n t u r y ) . b. The reference to rivers presents another difficulty. Up to the sixth cataract, the Nile does not receive any tributaries, hence Ethiopia like Egypt has only one river. ( S e e following note re Winckler's ingenious attempt to meet the difficulty presented by this verse and by 2g.) Those scholars who assume that l b is a gloss derived from Zeph. I I I . 10 escape the difficulties mentioned. 3 9 This assumption is challenged by Winckler (A. U. pp. 146-156). He contends that l b and 2g cannot possibly refer to Ethiopia. He assumes a confujsion between Kush and Kash (Southern Babylonia), and therefore concludes that the reference is to the swampy district beyond the Babylonian canals, the home of the Chaldeans. Mosquitoes are very abundant in the swamp districts of Southern Babylonia, therefore the epithet D'SSD I*"IN ( l a ) is very suitable, l a is also appropriate for parts of Ethiopia. I t must be admitted, however, that there is more point to the epithet if the reference is to the Chaldeans. Winckler believes that 2a also supports his theory. He maintains that D1 cannot refer to the Nile, but can refer to the Euphrates. He tries to show that in every passage, where is assumed to refer to the Nile, the interpretation is fault-y. He senses the difficulty presented by ( 2 b ) , but he does not believe it to be an insurmountable one. He claims that need not necessarily imply papyrus (an Egyptian product) but any kind of reed. The assumption that NfcJl does refer to papyrus is supported by references of Greek writers to Egyptians using light boats made out of papyrus, in order to enable them to carry them easily where the river is not navigable. I f the meaning of "JtPttQ (2d) is " t a l l " (a strange word to express this concept, and yet the most logical explanation of the meaning of this word, when applied to persons) and if the most satisfactory explanation of the word tilIB (2d) when applied to human beings, is that it refers to a glossy skin, then these epithets are very appropriate for the bronze skinned Ethiopians, whose splendid physique is alluded to by a number of Greek writers. Moreover, the Ethiopians, who succeeded in conquering Egypt, the memory of whose ancient prowess still lingered in the minds of Isaiah's contemporaries, might have very naturally been referred to as a "terrible people." I n accordance with Winckler's interpretation, the embassy referred to ia the embassy sent by Merodach Balladan described in I I K X X . It is important to note, however, that Isaiah's tone in this chapter is quite different than the

Notes to Chapter

III

115

t o n e u s e d in I I K X X . A l t h o u g h it m u s t be a d m i t t e d t h a t it is not possible to s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explain l b a n d 2 g when t h e s e v e r s e s a r e a s s u m e d to be r e f e r e n c e s to E t h i o p i a , n e v e r t h e less, s i n c e all t h e other a l l u s i o n s a r e appropriate, a n d since W i n c k l e r ' s h y p o t h e s i s p r e s e n t s new difficulties, most s c h o l a r s d i s r e g a r d W i n c k l e r ' s theory a n d f a v o r the old view viz. t h a t t h e l a n d apostrophised is E t h i o p i a a n d not S o u t h e r n B a b y l o n i a . 40

late

Many scholars regard prose a d d i t i o n ) .

v.

3a

as

an

interpolation.

(v.

7

is

also

regarded

as

a

c f . D u h m ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f X V I I I 5 ff. S e e n o t e 42 r e M a r t i ' s view. M a r t i a s s u m e s t h a t v e r s e s 5 and 6 a r e a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f X V I I 1-11. Acc o r d i n g l y , t h e r e f e r e n c e is not to t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of A s s y r i a , b u t r a t h e r o f t h e S y r i a n s and Ephraimites. I f t h e m e a n i n g o f V . 4 is not a l t o g e t h e r c l e a r when t a k e n in c o n j u n c t i o n with vv. 5 a n d 6 , the figure becomes even m o r e difficult to e x p l a i n w h e n v.4 is t a k e n by i t s e l f ( C f . E h r l i c h v. I l l p. 3 9 ) . Ehrlich 41

42

looks upon t h i s c h a p t e r as a collection of prophetic f r a g m e n t s , which have no conn e c t i o n b e t w e e n one a n o t h e r . 43 In this group, I h a v e i n c l u d e d X X I I I 1 - 1 4 , an o r a c l e on t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f T y r e , X X I I 1 5 - 2 S , an i n v e c t i v e a g a i n s t t h e p r i m e m i n i s t e r S h e b n a , X X I I 1 - 1 4 , a r e b u k e to t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f J e r u s a l e m , a n d 1 7-9, a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e desolation of Judah. I h a v e not i n c l u d e d Ch. X X n o r X I V 2 8 - 3 2 , a l t h o u g h both o f t h e s e o r a c l e s have an i m p o r t a n t b e a r i n g on our p r o b l e m , b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e not composed d u r i n g t h e period w i t h which t h i s study is c o n c e r n e d . T h e former clearly reveals I s a i a h ' s a t t i t u d e in 7 1 1 d u r i n g t h e revolt o f A s h d o d a n d m a k e s it n e c e s s a r y to date a c c o r d i n g l y all p r o p h e c i e s in which a d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e is i n d i c a t e d . The l a t t e r o r a c l e not only g i v e s us an i n s i g h t i n t o I s a i a h ' s a t t i t u d e d u r i n g o n e o f t h o s e c r i t i c a l m o m e n t s , w h e n all P a l e s t i n e w a s in a s t a t e o f f e r m e n t a n d t h e f a t e o f his own people h u n g in the b a l a n c e ( e i t h e r 7 2 7 , t h e y e a r t h a t T i g l a t h M l e t t i e r died, or 7 2 0 a f t e r the" A s s y r i a n d e f e a t at D u r - i l u ) b u t also f u r n i s h e s u s with a clue f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the date of t h e a c c e s s i o n o f H e z e k i a h . I have not i n c l u d e d a d i s c u s s i o n o f X X I I I 15 ff. or X I X 16-25 b e c a u s e s c h o l a r s a r e p r e t t y well a g r e e d t h a t t h e s e o r a c l e s a r e not I s i a n i c . I h a v e also n o t i n c l u d e d X I X 1 - 1 5 , which probably is I s i a n i c , b e c a u s e it does n o t shed i n y l i g h t on t h e problems d i s c u s s e d in this study. I f X I X 1 - 1 5 is I s i a n i c , it probably belongs to a n e a r l i e r period o f t h e p r o p h e t ' s c a r e e r ; — p o s s i b l y , t h e period f o l l o w i n g t h e c o n q u e s t o f P i a n k h i , w h e n a n u m b e r o f local D e l t a d y n a s t s t r i e d to a s s e r t t h e i r i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d w e r e q u a r r e l l i n g frith one a n o t h e r . (Breasted, in describing that period, quotes several verses f r o m this o r a c l e . H e s u g g e s t s t h a t no t r u e r p i c t u r e o f that t i m e could possibly be portrayed). I f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is c o r r e c t , then o n e d e d u c t i o n o f i m p o r t a n c e c a n b i m a d e viz. t h a t t h e p r o p h e t had a v e r y i n t i m a t e k n o w l e d g e o f c o n d i t i o n s in Egypt. I f t h e " f i e r c e " k i n g who shall rule o v e r t h e m " , ( v . 4 ) shouM not be i n t e r p r e t e d as an E t h i o p i a n c o n q u e r o r , but as an A s s y r i a n , then t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t a s e r i e s o f c a l a m i t i e s would b e f a l l E g y p t , m a y be r e g a r d e d a s a n o t h e r a t t e m p t to e m p h a s i z e t h e f u t i l i t y of r e l i a n c e upon E g y p t . E v e n if such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is possible, t h e r e is no n e e d of r e g a r d i n g X I X 1 - 1 5 as a s o u r c e f r o m which i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be derived c o n c e r n i n g S e n n a c h e r i b ' s third c a m p a i g n . ** I n a c c o r d a n c e with this hypothesis a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g one t h e r e f e r e n c e to the A s s y r i a n s (v. 1 3 ) is v e r y difficult to e x p l a i n . N o i n f e r e n c e c a n be m a d e , h o w e v e r , on t h e basis o f t h i s r e f e r e n c e , b e c a u s e the r e f e r e n c e to t h e C h a l d e a n s is equally difficult. T h e m e a n i n g of t h e v e r s e is not c l e a r . «Shebna, e v i d e n t l y was not a f t e r E l i a k i m was appointed in

e n t i r e l y d i s c r e d i t e d , b e c a u s e he his place. C f . X X X V I 13, 22.

still

ht