Sennacherib's Campaign Against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B.C.

Nazek Khalid Matty

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9783110449372
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This study offers a reconstruction of Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 BC. It contrasts and compares various, partly contradictious readings of this event and challenges established narratives. By giving equal weight to a great variety of different sources, whether literary or archaeological, the author comes to a new and profound understanding of this complex military conflict.

Chapter One: Introduction

1.Preliminary remarks

Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701 BC1 is a topic that has interested biblical specialists, Assyriologists and archaeologists for many years. This can be ascribed to the fact that the event has been recorded and well documented in a remarkable variety of sources. The campaign is recorded in Sennacherib’s annals more than once, and also in the Bible in three different accounts (2 Kgs 18–19; Isa 36–37; and 2 Chr 32). Also, there is archaeological evidence that tells us more about the event. Yet there is no consensus about what happened in 701, simply because the sources we have present the event in different, even contradictory, ways. This causes diversity in the way scholars read and interpret these sources. These factors have prolonged the debate about what really happened in 701, with people continuing to ask which account is historically realistic. Therefore, the more the topic has been investigated, the greater the number of divergent issues that have emerged.

In the midst of all these opinions, there is one thread running through all the studies: a fascination with what happened in 701. What is historical and what is theological? Which text is more reliable? In order to answer these questions, there have been a variety of approaches to this issue. Some scholars have focused their efforts on the historical aspect of the text, and others on the theological aspect. Some have approached it archaeologically, and some linguistically. Some have been concerned only with the Assyrian sources, while others have found the solution in the biblical accounts. Some scholars have explored additional sources, which are related to the event, such as “Sennacherib’s letter to God”2 and the narrative of Herodotus (History 2. 141), while others have dismissed these sources, considering them of no value in this regard. All in all, it is obvious that the approach used to deal with Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah is decided by what the researcher seeks to understand from the texts that relate the event. Therefore, it is important, I believe, to make clear what this research aims to discuss while investigating the texts related to the events of 701.

This study seeks to reconstruct Sennacherib’s third campaign against Judah and Jerusalem. I am aware that knowing exactly what happened in 701 is far from realistically possible. After all, in investigating the event under discussion, we deal with texts drenched with theological and propagandistic content, whose aim is not to relate history but to express ideology. In this regard, A. Kuhrt considers the attempt to know what has exactly happened as “a fruitless exercise”, since the Assyrian and biblical accounts are dealing with a version of events which were depicted to serve the interests of the scribes of both sides, despite the fact that the presence of factual data is undeniable.3 Kuhrt’s statement might be useful in reminding us that caution is in order when we seek historical information from the texts; nevertheless, it is worth persevering since what is required is not to know exactly what happened but rather to understand how much the data we have can help us in reconstructing the events of 701.

Therefore, this study will discuss historical questions about the campaign. The chief concern is whether Sennacherib had really accomplished his mission. Was there any reason for receiving Hezekiah’s tribute in Nineveh? Did Sennacherib return to Nineveh unexpectedly? If so, what was the reason for his return? Some scholars have assumed that Sennacherib was successful in his campaign. He quelled the rebels, punished the enemy kings and received their tribute, reestablishing peace in the region. Other scholars, however, assume that Sennacherib suffered a setback and returned to Nineveh unexpectedly. Still other scholars assume that both sides had a kind of victory: Sennacherib received tribute and Hezekiah remained on the throne with Jerusalem remaining intact. Each of these arguments is based on some reason that someone sees as supporting it. But none of the studies seems to me fully comprehensive. Previous works on Assyrian inscriptions have tended to focus only on Sennacherib’s third campaign. They do so at the cost of anything that can be learnt from the broader context in which this campaign took place, and the habitual way in which such campaigns were carried out under Sennacherib. We find a similar situation concerning the biblical account which narrates the return of Sennacherib. Previous theories have tended to limit themselves to one or two items of evidence to the exclusion of the rest. In doing so, scholars have consistently offered explanations of Sennacherib’s return which are in tension with the remaining evidence. For example, many scholars appeal to a rumour about a Nubian military advance as the reason for Sennacherib’s return, based on the combined evidence of 2 Kgs 19:7//Isa 36:7, and 2 Kgs 19:9//Isa 36:9. However, this is difficult to square with Hezekiah’s payment of a large tribute, mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:13–16. In my opinion, the best historical hypothesis concerning the reason for Sennacherib’s return should attempt to give equal weight to each piece of evidence in each relevant area, whether it be literary or archaeological in origin.

Therefore, my justification for returning to this much-discussed area is that previous scholarship has failed to meet the criteria required for providing the best historical hypothesis. Over the course of my investigation I shall examine the relevant Assyrian inscriptions, not merely those relating to the third campaign, and the purported instances of biblical evidence, as well as engaging with archaeological and literary considerations. I will show that the most important theories offered up to this point contradict or contend with an important piece of other evidence. Having shown this, I will then suggest a view of my own which does, as far as possible, take all the available evidence into due account.

2.Past research

2.1.Scholarly opinions

Several monographs and many articles have been dedicated to following the course of the campaign historically and answering the question of what happened in 701. One has to admit that the insights and conclusions of these studies must be taken seriously. However, in my survey, I shall present the theories of those who have pursued independent lines of research on the historicity of 701. The aim of this survey is to gain an understanding of the way scholars have dealt with the historical aspect of the events and to ask whether the perspectives have changed through years of studying this matter.

In 1967, B.S. Childs made a survey of the major historical reconstructions that had been suggested from the nineteenth century up to his time. His survey demonstrated that the theories are divided into three groups. The first group is those scholars who accepted the order of events as narrated in the Bible. Sennacherib attacked Hezekiah, and Hezekiah paid him tribute but it was not enough. Sennacherib, therefore, sent his official to threaten Jerusalem but something mysterious happened that then made Sennacherib withdraw. The second group are those scholars who argued that there were two campaigns. The tribute payment and the prophetic narrative are two stories narrating different events separated by a period of time. The third group are the scholars who assert the authenticity of the tribute episode and Sennacherib’s annals. Hezekiah lost the war and capitulated in the end. Childs was not satisfied with those arguments.4 Even after proposing the form-critical method as suitable for the text, at the end of his study he states: “The results of our study in reference to the historical problem have been mainly negative.”5

In 1980, R.E. Clements discussed the events of 701 and, in opposition to Childs, he asserts that “we know much of what happened in 701,” basing his confidence mainly on the tribute episode in 2 Kgs 18:13–16 and Sennacherib’s annals. In his view, the historical side of the problem is less important.6 He therefore directs attention to the literary origins in the prophetic narrative and to its theological ideas. He agrees with L.L. Honor’s suggestion that the prophetic narrative is “a late legendary version”7 and thus studies it as narrative theology.8

Despite these two contradictory views—i. e. the strongly negative conclusion of Childs about the efforts dedicated to the historical reconstruction of the event and Clements’ affirmation that the matter is very obvious—there have nevertheless been some attempts to discuss the historical aspects of the campaign. Some of these attempts, one must say, came in the context of other challenges and issues that scholars dealt with when they studied the deliverance of Jerusalem.

In his lengthy study, F. Gonçalves presented a significant literary critical study of 2 Kgs 18–19 and parallel passages in Isaiah and Chronicles. He accepted the traditional division of A (2 Kgs 18:13–16), B1 (2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37) and B2 (2 Kgs 19:9b–35) as three versions of the same event. Regarding the historical value of each part, Gonçalves seems somewhat tentative. In his view, the purpose of A is to show how and on what condition the war ended.9 B1 preserves historical memories, although it does not allow us to answer the question of what happened.10 B2 is a later addition and is to be regarded as secondary.

W.R. Gallagher’s conclusions about the historical aspect of the narrative are stronger, although his study is in a way similar to that of Gonçalves. He started by solving the problem of the contradictory portrayal of the prophet Isaiah in the prophetic narrative and in proto-Isaiah by establishing the historical background of some of the texts in Isaiah. Then, he moved on to discuss the historicity of A and B; in his view, both are reliable and they do not contradict the account of the campaign in the annals of Sennacherib. Hezekiah surrendered when Sennacherib was at Lachish, but Sennacherib did not accept that surrender immediately because it “did not conform to Sennacherib’s military goals”.11 However, he later accepted it as a result of two factors: first, he heard a rumour about an Egyptian army coming to fight him and, secondly, a setback occurred perhaps because of an epidemic.12

A refreshing new attempt has been made by P.S. Evans to solve the puzzle of 701. He dedicated his study to undertaking a rhetorical-critical analysis, which in his opinion is the only way to tackle the text.13 Aware that rhetorical criticism has tended to be ahistorical in its focus, he advanced his study with an eye on historical questions. Furthermore, he believes that the biblical account in 2 Kgs 18–19 provides significant evidence for the historian if it is read as a whole. In order to achieve that, he studied the structure of the whole story and posited that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 has syntactical integrity, containing as it does discernible units within the narrative linked to temporal progression. He did not believe the text is describing the same event three times (A, B1 and B2), but rather reflects a sequential progression. In the light of his structural analyses, Evans reread the story and resolved the tension between A and B. Having accomplished that, Evans turned to a discussion of the historicity of 2 Kgs 18–19. His treatment in this part is strongly dependent on his conclusions of the first part. The flow of the events is the same as they are narrated in the biblical account. However, he confirmed their historicity by comparing the biblical material with Sennacherib’s annals and reliefs.14 In his view, the role of the Egyptian aid was significant in the war.15

Another author who focused on the historical events of 701 without examining the biblical or the Assyrian texts comprehensively is H.T. Aubin. Aubin ascribed a significant role to the Kushite army led by Tirhakah against the Assyrians. His work is based on the story related in the biblical account in 2 Kgs 19:9, which describes Sennacherib hearing that Tirhakah King of Kush has come out to fight him. The author suggests, “it seems likely that this would have been a second expeditionary force that the pharaoh had mustered after sending off the one that fought at Eltekeh.”16 His point of departure is data given about the Egyptian role in 701 by Egyptologists.17 Aubin’s monograph is quite thorough and detailed, but his main argument is encapsulated within chapters 10 and 14 where he offers six reasons that lead him to the conclusion that troops dispatched as part of an Egyptian-Kushite army caused the Assyrian withdrawal.

An interesting solution to the problem is offered by S. Dalley, who looks at the events of 701 from a different angle. She emphasizes the favourable Assyrian foreign policy towards Judah, which reached its apex with Sennacherib’s unexpected treatment of Hezekiah’s rebellion after the former invaded Judah in 701. Her proposal differs from those of other scholars in that she suggests that Sennacherib’s positive conduct towards Hezekiah arose from the assumption that there was a family relationship by marriage between the Assyrian royal family and Jerusalem. Dalley’s proposal is first presented in her article “Yabâ, Atalyā and the Foreign Policy of Late Assyrian Kings”, where she asserts that the two Assyrian royal ladies, whose names Yabâ and Atalyā were found in grave 2 at Nimrud and who were the consorts of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II respectively, were originally Jerusalemites from the royal family.18 Her claim is primarily based on the argument that the names of the two ladies are not Assyrian names: Atalyā, Dalley argues, is a Hebrew name because it contains the Yahwistic theophoric yā, and Yabâ is a West Semitic name and it is possible to understand it as a Hebrew name.19 Beside the etymology of the names, the author discusses other evidence which reinforces the Jerusalemite identity of the two consorts. This evidence leads her to some conclusions about Sennacherib’s mild treatment of Hezekiah. These are as follows: diplomatic marriages are documented in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions. In addition, the names of foreign women who had a role in the royal court are known: Semiramis and Naqiiya. There are also signs of a peaceful relationship between Assyria and Judah in that Tiglath-pileser III’s attack against southern Palestine bypasses Jerusalem. Furthermore, there is the non-involvement of Ahaz in the anti-Assyrian coalition of 733, the silence of the Judean kings towards the Assyrian military action in the southern area in 732, 720 and 713, and Isaiah’s advice to Jerusalem (7:18–20) not to turn against Assyria. The message of Ahaz in 2Kgs 16:7 further indicates the peaceful relationship of Judah with Assyria.20 Thus, the period of the Judean kings from Uzziah through to the reign of Manasseh was marked by a peaceful and favourable relations...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Chapter One: Introduction
• Part One: Sennacherib’s Third Campaign within the Context of the Assyrian Inscriptions and Reliefs
• Part Two: Reasons for Sennacherib’s Withdrawal from Jerusalem within the Biblical Narratives
• Bibliography
• Appendix
• Index of Names
• Index of Ancient places
• Index of Ancient people
• Endnotes