Abstract
This article suggests reading the reworked prophetical story of Hezekiah's prayer, which is now the third part of the report of Sennacherib's war against Judah (2 Kgs 19.9b–35), as part of the rather well-documented debate concerning the inviolability of Jerusalem that was propounded during the Babylonian crisis in the last days of the Judean kingdom. Offering slight modifications of two existing theories, this article argues that the royal prayer served as the motive that moved this story forward, and that the list of conquered cities recounted in 2 Kgs 19.12–13 reflects a Neo-Babylonian setting. Based upon this, the story is compared with a parallel account of the deliverance of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah recounted during the trial of Jeremiah (Jer. 26.16–19). It is deduced that the two stories reflect similar ideological thought, which suggests that they served the same polemical purpose in the same historical setting.
1. Introduction
During the last days of the Kingdom of Judah, in the period leading up to and including the Babylonian conquest, there was a difference of opinion in Judah regarding the kingdom's preferred foreign policy. This debate, as it is portrayed in the prophecies and narrative of the book of Jeremiah, revolved around several questions. The issues included geo-political ones, such as which regional power should be joined, as well as religious ones, such as that of the truth of the prophecies. 1 One of the main disputes of this debate concerned the nature of Jerusalem's inviolability—or, in other words, whether the inviolability granted by the God of Israel to the city was conditional or not. 2
In this article I would like to suggest that the second story of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian assault during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19.9b–35), 3 which appears as a part of a chain of traditions on the subject (2 Kgs 18.13–19.37), was composed during the Babylonian crisis as part of this debate. The hypothesis is based on two assumptions. First, following the general consensus in modern research, I assume that this story embodies the view that the prayer of Hezekiah brought the salvation from the threat of Sennacherib. 4 Second, following the suggestion of Nadav Na'aman (with slight modifications), I presume that the geographic-historical background reflected in the story is that of the days of the Babylonian conquests. 5 I will first examine the story itself, then the evidence for the debate on the nature of the inviolability of Jerusalem, and finally the role that the stories of Jerusalem's 701 deliverance played in it.
2. The Central Message and the Time of Composition
A general consensus considers the complete report of the war of Sennacherib in Judah in 2 Kgs 18.13–19.37 as a chain of three accounts of a single event. 6 Through a literary process of several stages these accounts became a cyclic story in which Sennacherib threatens Jerusalem three times, and the city is delivered twice: once by a heavy payment, and once in a miraculous way. The second and third accounts of this chain are very similar to each other and are rightly considered two variations of one tradition of the deliverance of Jerusalem. The third account seems to be an adaptation of the second one, which is a prophetical story, 7 and, like it, is composed of four episodes: (episode 1) the threat—Sennacherib sends messengers to Hezekiah with letters, in which he attempts to persuade the King of Judah not to trust in God, who is unable to save his country, just as the gods of other countries could not save them (2 Kgs 19.9b–13); (episode 2) the king's reaction—Hezekiah lays out the letters in the temple before God and prays (2 Kgs 19.14–19); (episode 3) salvation prophecy—Isaiah responds in the name of God to the king's prayer (2 Kgs 19.20–34); (episode 4) salvation—the angel of God kills a large part of the Assyrian army (2 Kgs 19.35). 8 However, unlike the prophetical story, in the reworked one there are very few realistic details and they are replaced by the protagonists’ monologues: the words of Sennacherib as passed on by his messengers (2 Kgs 19.10–14), the prayer of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19.15b–19), and the prophecies of Isaiah (2 Kgs 19.20a–34). The descriptions of the events in this story seem as if they were merely connecting sentences, which link these monologues.
However, the reworked story is further different from the first one in both the general progression and various details. While in the prophetical story, the king responds to the threat coming upon Jerusalem by turning to the temple and sending a request to the prophet to pray (2 Kgs 19.1–4), in the reworked story the king turns to the temple and prays himself (2 Kgs 19.14–19). Accordingly, the prophecy of Isaiah in the reworked story appears only as a response to the king's prayer, with no record of the king appealing to him to do so. This modification involves two other changes: the main character in the reworked story is the king, and not the prophet, and the main factor that advances the plot is the prayer and not the prophecy or the position of the prophet. 9 Finally, of the two major elements, which move to the center of the story as a result of this change, namely Hezekiah and his prayer, it seems that the latter is the most important. 10 The comparison between the two stories reveals that the emphasis in the second one is on the actions of the king and not on his character. Thus the new explanation behind Jerusalem's deliverance from Sennacherib, which the reworked story presents, is the king's prayer. 11
A number of scholars have proposed that the discussed story was told prior to the destruction of the first temple; 12 however, many others claim that it was after that point. 13 One clue as to the time of the story's composition is the list of cities that the King of Assyria boasts as having been conquered by his ancestors (2 Kgs 19.12–13). Some scholars have pointed out that a number of the cities that appear in this list and are missing from the parallel list in the prophetical story (2 Kgs 18.34) do not fit their current context. 14 The cities of Harran, Gozan, and Rezeph, and the cities of the Kingdom of Beth Eden, were taken by the kings of Assyria in the middle of the ninth century BCE, approximately a hundred and fifty years prior to Sennacherib's campaign against Judah. It would therefore be strange for the Assyrian king to boast of conquering these cities. The appearance of the city of Harran is particularly surprising in this context, being that it was a holy city for the Assyrians in the days of the Sargonids. 15 In light of this, Nadav Na'aman suggests that the list reflects the conquests of the kings of Babylon in the late seventh century BCE and, accordingly, there is an association between the list and these conquests as they are recorded in a number of Babylonian chronicles. 16
This link that Na'aman suggests between the second story and the wars of the Babylonian kings in the late seventh century, can be strengthened further. The word la˓ir, which appears as part of the phrase ‘the king of La˓ir’ (2 Kgs 19.13), is commonly seen as a Hebrew form of the toponym Laḫiru, in Aramaic, l˓r,
17
which is the same as that of a city located to the northeast of Babylon.
18
This city was annexed to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BCE) and was attached to the administrative region located in the city of Arrapḫa.
19
According to Babylonian Chronicle No. 3, the Babylonian king Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrian army in 615
Despite that the historical background reflected in the list was established in the days of the rise and expansion of the Neo-Babylonian Empire at the end of the seventh century, Na'aman sets the time of the story's composition as following the death of Nebuchadnezzar II (562 BCE), half a century later. This is based on an exact reading of the words of the Assyrian King who attributes the conquests to his ancestors, and based on signs of the author's familiarity with Babylonian geography and demography. However, it seems that these details, which can be explained in other ways, 22 do not justify setting the time of the story's composition so long after the date that the anachronism contained in it requires. It is also hard to accept the assumption that a target audience from the mid-sixth century BCE would have been able to identify that the list was referring to Babylonian conquests. The insertion of details at a time later than the date of the described event can be interpreted as a literary tool, only if the new details are meaningful to the target audience more than the original information. Therefore, the list of cities, which the Assyrian king boasts as being conquered by his ancestors in the reworked prophetical story, points to the fact that the story was composed and told in the last days of Judah.
3. The Prophetical Reworked Story as Part of the Debate on the Inviolability of Jerusalem
In the following section, I will address the contents of the debate on the nature of the inviolability of Jerusalem and its characteristics. I will show how the story in question, in which the period of the Babylonian crisis is reflected and points to the fact that Jerusalem was delivered from Sennacherib in the merit of the king's prayer, integrates into the knowledge we have of this debate.
In the framework of the debate, one side claimed that Jerusalem, the abode of God and the place of his temple, could never be destroyed, 23 while the other understood that the eternalness of Jerusalem was conditioned on the behavior of the king, the city's residents and the residents of Judah. The second group's understanding is preserved in the prophecies of its main representative, the prophet Jeremiah, whereas the position of the first group is preserved mainly in the context of the polemic against it. 24
A presentation of the views of both groups can be found, for example, in the prophecy that Jeremiah is said to have spoken at the gate of the House of God (Jer. 7.1–7). The prophet presents his views on eternal settlement in Judah and Jerusalem as conditioned on the people's improving their behavior: ‘Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place’ (v. 3). In addition to this stipulation, the prophet presents a contrast to what he calls ‘words of falsehood’, which claim the guarantee of eternal security simply due to the presence of the sanctuary of God in the city: ‘the sanctuary of God, the sanctuary of God, the sanctuary of God’ (v. 4). He goes on to describe what appears to him to be a complete absurdity: reliance on the house of God alongside social and ritual corruption (Jer. 7.3–11). With these words, Jeremiah also counters the automatic appeal to the temple: ‘and you come and stand before me in this house …’ (v. 11), which stems from a belief that simply appealing to the temple, or even its mere presence in Jerusalem, is enough to save the believers from disaster. 25
The words of the false prophets are brought elsewhere in more detail. When God tells the prophet that he will ignore the people's gestures of worship and intends to destroy them, the prophet attempts to defend the people claiming that their conduct is based on the words of the prophets: ‘Then said I: “Ah, Lord G
Similarly, the words of those who believed in the city's inviolability are quoted in the context of a prophetical threat on an element in Jerusalem, which is not explicitly named: ‘Who shall come down against us? Or who shall enter into our habitations?’ (Jer. 21.13). According to those who held this view, Jerusalem gives security to its inhabitants, and no enemy could threaten its inviolability. These short statements do not provide us with an understanding of the foundations of this belief and it may be interpreted as confidence in earthly factors. However, the prophetical demand addressed to the House of David in the preceding verses—‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor’ (v. 12)—has a condition attached: ‘lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings’ (v. 12). The prophet thus makes the inviolability that the city provides contingent on the practice of justice and law. 26
Jeremiah presents several precedents in order to convince those who relied on the House of God of the conditions that must be upheld in order to maintain its security. He mentions the temple of God in Shiloh several times: ‘For go you now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I caused my name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel’ (Jer. 7.12); further on, the prophet threatens that God will do the same thing now to Jerusalem: ‘unto the house, whereupon my name is called’ ‘and wherein you trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh’; notice that he describes the house as ‘wherein you trust’ (v. 14). However, it seems that neither the mention of the former temple in Shiloh that God forsook and destroyed (see also: Jer. 26.6, 9), nor the mention of the sister kingdom, a former neighbor (Jer. 7.15), 27 had any effect.
Seemingly the conflict between these two approaches is most clearly reflected in the ‘trial of Jeremiah’ (Jer. 26.7–19) 28 where ‘the priests and the prophets’ sought to put him to death for delivering prophecies of the temple's destruction. The opponents’ skepticism that Jeremiah's words indeed come from God stands at the center of the allegations directed to him (v. 9); this is deduced from the fact that most of Jeremiah's defense concerns the legitimacy of his speaking of God's word (vv. 12, 15). It seems that the believers’ confidence in the inviolability of Jerusalem led them to see anyone who questioned this idea as a false prophet. 29 Another prophet, Uriah son of Shemaiah, was put to death for expressing similar beliefs (Jer. 26.20–23). Jeremiah himself escaped a similar fate only because of the protection he received from Ahikam son of Shaphan (Jer. 26.24).
During this ‘juridical’ episode, ‘the elders of the land’ used the historical precedent of Micah of Moresheth in the days of Hezekiah in defense of Jeremiah:
Micah of Moresheth prophesied at the time of Hezekiah king of Judah, and said to the entire nation as follows: ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? Did he not fear the Lord, and entreat the favor of the Lord, and the Lord repented of the evil which he had pronounced against them?”’ (Jer. 26.18–19a)
The prophecy quoted from Micah is known from his book of prophecies (Mic. 3.9–12). 30 However, in the book of Jeremiah the prophecy is integrated into the story, which is actually a new version of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the anticipated destruction. According to this version, Micah threatened the king that the city will be destroyed because of its sins. The king accepted his message and prayed, and thanks to the king's response, God reversed his decision and the city was saved. 31 We therefore have another story that attributes the saving of Jerusalem to the prayer of a king in the days of Hezekiah.
Much like in the account concerning Micah's prophecy, in the reworked prophetical story of the War of Sennacherib in Judah the existence of Jerusalem comes under threat, and there, too, the threat is cancelled following Hezekiah's prayer. The two stories do differ in regard to the role of the prophet; in the story of Isaiah, the prophet brings the message of deliverance, while in the story of Micah he warns of the impending destruction and prompts the king to pray and save Jerusalem. However, this difference loses its significance if we assume that the story of Isaiah is based on the primary prophetical story where the prophet played a different role, while the story of Micah's prophecy is based on the prophecy of destruction itself.
The story of Micah should be seen as a relevant interpretation of Micah's prophecy. Micah, who was seen as a true prophet, foretold of the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the city was spared because the king listened, understood the significance of the threat, and prayed to God. The first story, on the other hand, which focuses on Isaiah, was modified by someone who was a contemporary of Jeremiah and a partner to his view. The story was adjusted so that it came to focus on the king and his prayer. The lesson which emerges from both of the stories is the same: only the approach of the king to God and not the mythical inviolability of Jerusalem had been the basis for the city's deliverance in the past and can lead to its rescue in the future.
The fact that the prophet Micah is mentioned in this context is not coincidental. Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah and a partner to his demands for morality. However, regarding the status of Jerusalem, the prophets disagreed with each other. Isaiah believed that Jerusalem alone would survive the oncoming Assyrian crisis and initiate the dawn of a new era in the relationship between humanity and God, while Micah was of the opinion that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of its sins. Hence the difference between the two stories which attribute the rescue of Jerusalem to the prayer of the king. The story of Micah presents Hezekiah's prayer as a response to Micah's threat, while the reworked story of Isaiah presents the prayer as the spontaneous reaction of the king (and Isaiah's prophecy as a response to this prayer).
Ostensibly, the story of Micah could have better served the position of Jeremiah and his faction. A story about the prophetical threat of destruction, the people's response, and the king's prayer to rescue the city is nearer to their approach. However, it seems that an alternative tradition was also prevalent among the people, namely Isaiah's non-conditional promise to save Jerusalem. This is the same tradition, which is presented in the prophetical story of the War of Sennacherib in Judah. 32 It seems that the story was reworked to offer an alternative to this tradition. The reworked prophetical story was developed, therefore, to eliminate the negative effects of the tradition embodied in the first story.
The authors of this story used the polemical method of ‘partial admission’; they accepted the widespread tradition in general, even if it was not entirely to their liking, and changed important details in accordance with their view. They say, Isaiah promised Hezekiah deliverance, but this promise only followed the king's prayer. This presentation of the ideas obscures Isaiah's perspective, wherein Jerusalem is protected by an unconditional mythical inviolability. This is a concept well known from many of Isaiah's prophecies 33 and is reflected in the story. The use of this polemical method brings out the similarities between the two stories in the book of Kings, and in this context we can understand the main differences between them. 34
The similarity between the two situations in which the two kings, Hezekiah and Zedekiah, stood is strengthened by the description of King Zedekiah's appeal to Jeremiah to pray to God on behalf of the people (Jer. 37.3). Just like Hezekiah's appeal to Isaiah in the first story (2 Kgs 19.2–6), Zedekiah also sent a delegation of officials to Jeremiah in light of the threat to his city. Yet, in contrast to Isaiah's positive reaction, Jeremiah sent the emissaries back empty handed. 35 In the description of a similar event, in Jer. 21.1–14, which may be another description of the same event, 36 the officials ask the prophet in the name of the king to inquire of God for the sake of the people. Their words create the expectation that God will do ‘all of his wonders’ and that Nebuchadnezzar ‘will leave us and continue on’. It seems that these words are an explicit reference to the previous case where God removed the threat from Jerusalem (Jer. 21.1–2). The similarity between the situations that the city faced, the contact between the king and the prophet in both periods, on the one hand, and the differences in their responses, on the other, reinforce the contrast between the approaches of Isaiah and Jeremiah. 37
Some explain the similarities between the description of Sennacherib's War in Kings and Isaiah and the description of the last days of Judah in the book of Jeremiah as if the first story is dependent on the latter. According to de Jong, for example, the entire chain of Sennacherib's War stories is a flashback to stories from the book of Jeremiah and is intended to explain retroactively the difference between the fate of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah and its fate in Zedekiah's time. 38 Based on a similar approach, Hardmeier suggests that the first of the prophetical stories was written during the truce from the Babylonian siege in 588 BCE and its purpose was to condemn Jeremiah by comparing him to the Rabshakeh. 39 He sets the composition of the second story several years after the destruction, among circles that opposed Jewish leadership which was not from the lineage of David (Gedaliah). In this framework the goal of the story was to present Hezekiah as righteous. 40 However, it seems that there is no justification for nullifying the historical value of all of the elements of tradition concerning the events of 701 BCE and dismissing them as a retroactive look back at other events.
4. Conclusions
The successful stand of Jerusalem during Sennacherib's campaign against Judah in 701 BCE was already perceived as a significant event at the time of its occurrence. 41 It was seen as such by the following generations, 42 and is still perceived that way in modern historical research. 43 At least three traditions were preserved in the book of Kings alone where the event is described, while presenting different explanations for the rescue of Jerusalem. In this article I suggest reading the third part of the account of Sennacherib's war against Judah (2 Kgs 19.9b–35) as part of the rather well-documented debate concerning the inviolability of Jerusalem that was propounded during the Babylonian crisis in the last days of the Judean kingdom. Offering slight modifications of two existing theories, I take the royal prayer to be the motive that moves this story forward, and the list of conquered cities recounted in it (2 Kgs 19.12–13) as reflecting a Neo-Babylonian setting. Based upon this, I compare the story with a parallel account of the deliverance of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah recounted during the trial of Jeremiah (Jer. 26.16–19) and deduce that the two stories reflect similar ideological thought, suggesting that they served the same polemical purpose in the same historical setting. Thus one of the traditions brought in the book of Kings, often called the ‘second story’ (2 Kgs 19.9b–35), is a new description of the event which is designed to provide a new explanation one hundred years after its occurrence. The authors of this new story expressed their opinion in the debate on the nature of the inviolability of the city that took place prior to and during the Babylonian conquests; their contribution was that it was the prayer of the king that brought the past deliverance of the eternal city.
Faith in the inviolability of Jerusalem was known prior to Sennacherib's campaign. The prophet Micah already condemned it when quoting the leaders, priests and prophets of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Is not the L
In conclusion, we see how the suggestion regarding the background to the formation of the second story of Sennacherib's campaign against Judah fits the history of the tradition of the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib. At the time of the events or shortly thereafter, there is a record in the chronicles of a large tribute sent to Sennacherib from the treasury of the temple and the king (2 Kgs 18.13–16). 47 Immediately after Sennacherib's death and the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy about his fate, 48 or, perhaps, a generation later, the first story was told (2 Kgs 18.17–19.9a, 36–37). 49 This story was mediated to the following generations in Jerusalem and it gained a respectable place in the development of the belief of the inviolability of Jerusalem. Several generations later, when the debate on this issue arose in the face of the Babylonian conquests, the story was used by the supporters of the belief that Jerusalem could not be conquered. In order to counter this well-accepted story and eliminate its destructive influence, the opponents created a counter version in which the rescue of Jerusalem was dependent on the prayer of the king and not on unconditional mythic inviolability (2 Kgs 19.9b–15a, 20, 32–33, 35). Sometime after the destruction, when the differences between the two stories no longer had practical ramifications and they could be considered two traditions of saving the city, the new story was inserted into the story it was originally created to offset. 50
Footnotes
1.
For a detailed description of the debate regarding the political question, see A. Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (CHANE, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001), pp. 313–19. On the complex situation in terms of considerations, opinions and groups, see O. Lipschitz, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 70–72. On the debate about the reliability of prophecy and other texts that may be interpreted as part of it, see A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, their Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), pp. 142–52.
2.
See, e.g., L.J. Hoppe, The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), pp. 37–38.
3.
As we shall see, the contents of the second story and its description of the events do not allow for it to be considered as part of the ‘Prophetical Stories’ genre, and therefore we called it ‘the second story’.
4.
See, e.g., Rofé, Prophetical Stories, p. 95, and see more below.
5.
See N. Na'aman, ‘New Light on Hezekiah's Second Prophetical Story’, Bib 81 (2000), pp. 393–402; idem, ‘Updating the Message: Hezekiah's Second Prophetic Story (2 Kings 19.9b–35) and the Community of Babylonian Deportees’, in L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (JSOTSup, 363/EHSM, 4; Sheffield: T&T Clark International, 2003), pp. 201–220 (201–204). See further below.
6.
The three traditions which are commonly identified as the basis of the description of Sennacherib's war in Judah in 2 Kgs 18.17–19.37 are: A—a tradition based on annalistic registrations (2 Kgs 18.13–16); B1—the (first) Prophetical Story (2 Kgs 18.17–19.9a, 36–37); B2—the Second (Prophetical) Story (2 Kgs 19.9b–35). The basis of this theory was put forth by B. Stade, ‘Miscellen. 16. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21’, ZAW 6 (1886), pp. 172–86. The form in which it is described here was established by B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 2nd Series, 3; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 69–103. This analysis explains the boundaries of the main components of the chain and the relationship between them. However, we can assume that each of the embedded traditions has its own history of transmission and that even after creating a chain each of its components underwent changes. See below nn. 48 and 50.
7.
See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, p. 98.
8.
For the possibility that the miraculous ending to the second story is only secondary, see R.E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSup, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), p. 59.
9.
By contrast, Cogan and Tadmor, for example, believe that the prophet is also the main character in the second story, and they therefore speculate that the social background of this story is among groups consisting of the disciples of Isaiah's disciples. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, 2 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 243–44.
10.
See Rofé, Prophetical Stories, p. 95. Rofé points to the prayer as the element that advances the plot in the story, but he sees the heart of this story in the ‘standoff between Sennacherib and God for the kingdom of the world, a standoff where God is the victor’. Therefore, he establishes its exilic setting, where these issues were on the agenda.
11.
While many researchers have recognized the importance of the prayer in this story, they generally tend to emphasize the role of Hezekiah and not his decision specifically to pray. See, e.g., Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, pp. 100–101, 107. Hardmeier suggests that a group of Davidic loyalists tells this story, which glorifies Hezikiah's righteousness, after the murder of Gedaliah; see C. Hardmeier, ‘Die Propheten Micha und Jesaja im Spiegel von Jeremia XXVI und 2 Regum XVIII–XX: zur Prophetie-Rezeption in der nach-joschijanischen Zeit’, in J.E. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 172–89 (189). Na'aman suggests seeing this story as a first sign for the development of the image of Hezekiah from a righteous king into an ideal one, a process that reached its climax in the book of Chronicles and rabbinical literature; see Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, pp. 215–16, with literature. See also Gray, Kings, p. 686.
12.
See Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance, p. 84; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, p. 244.
13.
See the scholars mentioned in n. 11 above, and in Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, p. 213 n. 46.
14.
See the scholars listed by Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, p. 213 n. 46
15.
See Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, pp. 207–208; S.W. Holloway, ‘Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Implications for Sennacherib's “Letter to Hezekiah” in 2 Kings’, in S.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOTSup, 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 276–314 (311–12).
16.
Na'aman supports the reading of the story against the background of the Babylonian conquests, pointing out that the story attributes the destruction of divine images to the enemy (2 Kgs 19.12). See Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, pp. 211–12. However, it seems that this statement should be qualified, since Assyrian sources documented several cases of the destruction of statues and temples. See M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (SBLMS, 19; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), p. 24. This being said, it should be noted that these cases of the conquest Muṣaṣir by Sargon II, the conquest of Babylonia by Sennacherib and the conquest of Elam by Ashurbanipal are considered exceptions in Assyrian history and historiography. See also W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), p. 229, and n. 258; S.W. Holloway, Assur Is King! Assur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2002), pp. 118–22.
17.
See D. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 59; A. Sarsowsky, ‘Notizen zu einigen biblischen geographischen und ethnographischen Namen’, ZAW 32 (1912), pp. 146–51 (146), and G.R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), no. 6, l. 1 and p. 57; R. Zadok, ‘Geographical and Onomastic Notes’, JNES 11 (1976), pp. 113–26 (114). And in their wake: Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, p. 235; Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, p. 211.
18.
The ruler of Laḫiru was the eponym of the year 673 BCE. See A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire (SAAS, 1; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994), pp. 52, 86. There is no agreement regarding the exact location of Laḫiru. Some locate it southeast of the city of Der. See G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B. C.: A Political History (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 69; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1992), p. 220 n. 37. Some situate it north of it. See R. Zadok, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemanian Periods (Jerusalem: H.J. & Z. Wanaarta, 1977), p. 19. It is possible that there were two cities with this name. See E. Forrer, Provinzeinteilung des assyrische Reiches (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1920), p. 47; J.A. Brinkmann, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C. (AnOr, 18; Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1963), p. 178 n. 1093; A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994), p. 444.
19.
See H. Tadmor and S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722), Kings of Assyria (RINAP, 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), p. 118, #47 (Summ. 7), obv. 13.
20.
See A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975), pp. 91–92, ll. 12–15.
21.
For a detailed description of the first stages of the Neo-Babylonian Empire's domination over the Assyrian Empire, see Lipschitz, The Fall and Rise, pp. 11–20
22.
Mentioning the ancestors may be reminiscent of the language in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, and the information about Babylonia can be explained as a gloss which was inserted into the text in the process of transmission. The insertion of the note ‘which are at Telassar’ to the text was meant to replace the political-topographical location ‘Beth Eden’ with the ethnographic location of ‘People of Eden’. For examples for these two words as synonyms in this context, and for their alternation in different versions of one text, see S. Talmon, ‘Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament’, in Ch. Rabin (ed.), Studies in the Bible (Scripta Hierrosolymitana, 8; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), pp. 335–85 (346–48). (I thank Dr. Noam Mizrahi for the information and the reference.) For the connection between the biblical account of the war of Sennacherib and the writings of Assyrian kings, see Ch. Cohen, ‘Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Šāqê’, IOS 9 (1979), pp. 32–48.
23.
A differentiation should be made between this view and the natural confidence in physical fortifications (e.g. Jer. 5.17) or a powerful ally (Jer. 2.36–37; 46.25). Similarly, Jeremiah criticizes the gentile kingdoms for their confidence in their wealth. See Jer. 48.7 (Moab); 49.4 (Ammon).
24.
The evidence of the polemic discussed below is found in various parts of the book of Jeremiah. Even if some of them were incorporated into the book at a later stage, it appears that the general picture that emerges reflects the times and the views of the prophet. See Y. Hoffman, Jeremiah (Mikra leIsrael; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001 [Hebrew]), pp. 81–86, 246. For a discussion on the technique of prophetical speech in which the counterpart is quoted, see D. Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction and Exile (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009 [Hebrew]), pp. 58–85.
25.
Despite the presence of many characteristics of Deuteronomistic language in this literary unit, it should not be considered a composition that is exclusive to this school; nor should it be expropriated from Jeremiah himself. See Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 246
26.
Similar statements that are formulated a little differently are directed specifically at the kings of Judah in Jer. 22.3–5. For the linkage between the two units, see Hoffman, Jeremiah, pp. 440–41, 448.
27.
See also Jer. 3.6. Hoffman sees the references to the Kingdom of Israel in Chapter 3 (also in v. 18) as part of a later interpretation of the original words of Jeremiah. See Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 154; J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004), p. 305.
28.
According to the dating in the beginning of the story (Jer. 26.1), the incident took place in the early stages of the Babylonian crisis, and so we are unable to address the situation as it stood at the height of the polemic. Hoffman suggests a more general reading of the dating: ‘the first years of Jehoiakim's reign’. See Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 520; Lundbom, Jeremiah, p. 301.
29.
See Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 516.
30.
For a discussion of the context of the prophecy and the relationship between it and the consolation prophecy shared by Micah and Isaiah (Mic. 4.1–4; Isa. 2.2–4), see J.-M. Vincent, ‘Michas Gerichtswort gegen Zion (3,12) in seinem Kontext’, ZTK 83 (1986), pp. 167–87. It is possible, though hardly likely, that Micah's prophecy was uttered before the destruction of Samaria and, thus, contrary to the interpretation in Jeremiah, there is no connection to Sennacherib's campaign. See F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 386–87. For our study, the way it was interpreted in the days of Jeremiah is most important.
31.
See Hoffman, Jeremiah, pp. 526–27.
32.
For the place of Isaiah in the first story, see, e.g., Rofé, Prophetical Stories, pp. 89–93.
33.
See, e.g., Isa. 30.15–18; 31.4–9. This viewpoint is clearly reflected in the prophecies to Ahaz when faced with the Aramean-Israelite threat. The prophet criticized the king for his lack of belief and at the same time promised, ‘it shall not come and it shall not be’ (Isa. 7.7).
34.
The close relationship between the two stories that are presented on both sides of the controversy may also explain the scant number of realistic details in the second story. The second story is written for an audience who knew the first story. Thus the relationships does not stem from the fact that they are two consecutive parts of one story. See Gallagher, Sennacherib, pp. 149–60.
35.
For a detailed comparison between the descriptions see Ch. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas – Erzaehlkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja-und Jeremiaerzaehlungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40 (BZAW, 187; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 307–309.
36.
For an approach which understands both stories as two versions of the same story and the version of ch. 21 dependent on the one in ch. 37, see Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 439. It seems that in the debate regarding the relationship between these two accounts and the connection between them and the description of the delegation in Isaiah, the description of the delegation that Josiah sent to Hulda the Prophetess (2 Kgs 22.11–20) should be taken into account, raising the possibility that they depict a typical response pattern in face of crisis. For a parallel account in Mari, see A. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1989), p. 90.
37.
See M. Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem (LHBOTS, 423; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005), pp. 43–46.
38.
See S. de Jong, ‘Hizkia en Zedekia: Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18:17–19:37/Jes. 36–37 tot Jer. 37:1–10’, Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese/Bijbelse Theologie 5 (1984), pp. 135–46. Following de Jong, see K.A.D. Smelik, ‘Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii’, in Adam S. Van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspective: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology, and Intertestamental Literature: Papers read at the Joint British—Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Cambridge, U.K., 1985 (OtSt, 24; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986), pp. 70–93 (86).
39.
See Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit, pp. 307–21. In contrast, Diamond believes that the introduction to the description of Jeremiah's trial, which emphasizes the difference between Jehoiakim and Hezekiah to the description of the siege and the delegation (ch. 37), is intended, among other things, to reduce the impression of similarity that may arise specifically regarding the parallel between Jeremiah and the Rabshakeh. See A.R.P. Diamond, ‘Portraying Prophecy: Of Doublets, Variants and Analogies in the Narrative Representation of Jeremiah's Oracles—Reconstructing the Hermeneutics of Prophecy’, JSOT 57 (1993), pp. 111–15.
40.
See Hardmeier, Propheten im Spiegel.
41.
See Isa. 1.2–9. For a range of discussions on this topic and updated literature, see the essays appearing in Grabbe (ed.), Like a Bird in a Cage.
42.
For a discussion of a wide range of biblical sources with an emphasis on the influence of this event on common outlooks at the end of the first temple period, see H. Eshel, ‘Sennacherib's Campaign on Jerusalem’, in D. Amit and R. Gonen (eds.), Jerusalem during First Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1991), pp. 143–56 (Hebrew); for the second temple period, see idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2008), pp. 101–15.
43.
For the influence of the results of Sennacherib's campaign on centralized worship in Judah, see, e.g., V. Maag, ‘Erwägungen zur deuteronomischen Kultzentralisation’, VT 6 (1956), pp. 10–18, and compare M. Weinfeld, From Joshua to Josiah: Turning Points in the History of Israel from the Conquest of the Land until the Fall of Judah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992 [Hebrew]), p. 162. For its influences on the development of monotheism, see I.G. Matthews, ‘Sennacherib's Invasion and Its Religious Significance’, BW 37 (1911), pp. 115–19; J. Pakkala, ‘The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History’, SJOT 21 (2007), pp. 159–78 (162). Pakkala believes that the most significant event was the destruction of the temple and the exile. For the effect of its consequences on the demography and consequently the social structure in Judah as well as the beliefs, opinions and rules, see B. Halpern, ‘Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century
44.
Some attribute the belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem to Jebusite–Canaanite sources. See, e.g., J.H. Hayes, ‘The Tradition of Zion's Inviolability’, JBL 82 (1963), pp. 419–26. However, there is, in fact, no evidence of this belief before the days of Micah. Bright raised the possibility that at the time of the last rebellion this belief was also influenced by the fact that Jerusalem survived the first Babylonian conquest; see J. Bright, A History of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 4th edn, 2000), p. 332.
45.
Clements sees the faith in the inviolability of Jerusalem as a development of the seventh century BCE, as part of the ‘God will bring victory over the nations who rebel in Jerusalem’ motif, which is one of the components of what is known in research as ‘the Zion Traditions’, which began at the time of the United Monarchy. See Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance, pp. 72–89 with literature. For a survey on research on the faith of the inviolability of Jerusalem, see B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), pp. 13–19.
46.
See Eshel, ‘Sennacherib’, p. 155; Lipschitz, The Fall and Rise, pp. 92–94, 405.
47.
See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, I (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1943), p. 76; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. H.S. Gehman; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), p. 482; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, pp. 240–41. For this genre in the book of Kings, see M. Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 10; New York: Doubleday, 2004), pp. 94–95.
48.
It is possible that part of Isaiah's prophecy heralding the death of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19.7), as well as the information regarding the realization of this part of the prophecy (2 Kgs 19.37), is a later addition. If so, then this story could have been fashioned before 681 BCE.
49.
Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, p. 93; Rofé, Prophetical Stories, pp. 92–93; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, p. 243; Na'aman, ‘Updating the Message’, pp. 216–17.
50.
At this stage or later the words of Hezekiah to Isaiah through the delegation were added in the first prophetical story (2 Kgs 19.3–4), as well as the wording of Hezekiah's prayers (2 Kgs 19.15a–19) and of the prophetical answer to this prayer (2 Kgs 19.21–28) in the second story. The question of how Jerusalem was saved, whether it was as a result of its inviolability or because of the king's prayer, was of less interest for the authors of these additions, which were interested in God's great victory over a great king who represents other gods, belittling the power of the God of Israel. See A.F. Campbell and M.A. O'Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), pp. 449–50, and cf. Gray, Kings, p. 667.