Hezekiah
and Sennacherib
by: Mark S. Haughwout
From the class:
Nahum and the Assyrian Tradition in
Biblical Prophecy
Visiting Professor Peter Machinist - Spring
2003
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
(Rothberg International School)
Updated: 20 April
2016
Copyright 2016 - Mark S. Haughwout -
all rights reserved
Please link to this page when
quoting.
Outline
Introduction
The Historical Account Problem
Summary
of the Biblical Accounts
HezekiahÕs
sickness
Merodach-Baladan
son of Baladan king of Babylon
The
Assyrian Account of SennacheribÕs invasion
Comparison
of the Accounts
Death
of Sennacherib
Reconciling
the Accounts
One
invasion scenario
Two
invasion scenario
The
Jubilee
Three
invasion scenario
The Chronological Problem: 701 and HezekiahÕs 14th
year
The
Problem Stated
The
Biblical Chronology
The
Passover in HezekiahÕs 1st Year
The
Assyrian Chronology
Difficulties
in the Assyrian Chronology
Proposed
solutions to the chronological problem
715
BC ascension year for Hezekiah
The
Length of Sargon IIÕs reign
Alternate
dates for the Eclipse of Bur-Sagale
Error
in the Assyrian Chronology
Conclusion
Bibliography
Hezekiah and Sennacherib
The
Bible records an invasion of Sennacherib king of Assyria, in the 14th
year of Hezekiah king of Judah.
Assyrian records also give account of an invasion of Sennacherib into
the land of Judah. Many
scholars have noted similarities between the two accounts and desire to link
them historically. However the
final outcome in the Biblical record does not match perfectly with the Assyrian
record. Additionally the Biblical
accounts seem to place the 14th year of Hezekiah in c.713 BC whereas
the Assyrian record seems to be recounting events of c.701 BC. In this brief work I will firstly
discuss the historical accounts and the attempts at reconciling them and secondly
I will discuss the specific problem of dating HezekiahÕs 14th year
and SennacheribÕs 3rd year to the same year. And finally I will discuss possible
solutions to this problem.
The Historical Account Problem
Summary of the Biblical Account
Isaiah
36:1-2 ÒNow it came to pass in the fourteenth
year of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the
fortified cities of Judah and took them.
Then the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish
to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem.Ó
What follows is a discussion between the
Rabshakeh and HezekiahÕs servants who are on the walls of Jerusalem. The servants report to Hezekiah of the
RabshakehÕs demand that Hezekiah surrender the city. Hezekiah in turn seeks the LORD via Isaiah the prophet from whom he
gets this response:
ÒThus
says the LORD: ÔDo not be afraid of the words which you have heard, with which
the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Surely I will send a spirit upon him,
and he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; and I will cause him to
fall by the sword in his own landÕÓ (Isaiah
37:6b-7)
ÒThen
the Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah,
for he heard that he had departed from Lachish. And the king heard concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, ÔHe
has come out to make war with you.ÕÓ
(Isaiah 37:8-9a)
Sennacherib
then sends a threatening letter to Hezekiah telling him not to think that
Jerusalem will be saved. Hezekiah
again seeks the LORD and Isaiah utters a long prophecy against Assyria which
includes the following:
ÒTherefore
thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria:
ÔHe shall not come into this city,
Nor shall he shoot an arrow there,
Nor come before it with shield,
Nor build a siege mound against it,
By the way he came,
By the same he shall return;
And he shall not come into this city,Õ
Says the LORD
ÔFor I will defend this city, to save it
For My own sake and for My servant
DavidÕs sakeÕ
Then the angel of the LORD went out, and
killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and
when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses-all
dead. So Sennacherib king of
Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at
Nineveh. Now it came to pass, as
he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god that his sons Adrammelech and
Sharezer struck him down with the sword; and they escaped into the land of
Ararat. Then Esarhaddon his son
reigned in his place.Ó (Isaiah 37:33-38)
Next
Hezekiah is recorded as becoming sick unto death and then recovering, by the
mercy of JHVH. ÒAt that time Merodach-Baladan the son of
Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to HezekiahÉÓ (Isaiah 39:1) Hezekiah shows all his
treasures to the Babylonian envoy and Isaiah then prophesies to Hezekiah that
the Babylonians will come in the future and carry all the treasure and
HezekiahÕs offspring off to Babylon.
For
the above summary I have relied on the account in Isaiah 36-39, since this is
considered, though not by all, to be the oldest account. Parallel accounts are also found in 2nd
Kings 18-20 and in 2nd Chronicles 32. Apparently the writer of Kings relied on IsaiahÕs account in
part and also upon other accounts (for the opposing view see Gallagher
p143). This is most evident by the
additional information inserted in between 2nd Kings 18:13 and
18:17. The Chronicler seems to
indicate that for his own account he relied on IsaiahÕs account as well as
another source. ÒNow the rest of the acts of Hezekiah,
and his goodness, indeed they are written in the vision of Isaiah the
prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and
Israel.Ó (2nd Chronicles 32:32)
Obviously the Ôbook of the kings of Judah and IsraelÕ is not our present day
book of Kings, for the Chronicler includes the Passover celebration of
HezekiahÕs day, which is not found in Kings.
HezekiahÕs sickness
Following the account of
SennacheribÕs invasion and subsequent retreat, the account of HezekiahÕs
sickness is recorded. The text
reads ÒIn those days Hezekiah was sick and near
death.Ó (Isaiah 38:1,
cf. 2nd Kings 20:1)
Isaiah the prophet tells Hezekiah he will die, but Hezekiah prays to
YHVH and Isaiah comes back to him and tells him YHVH has added 15 years to his
life.
Since
we read in Isaiah 36:1 and 2nd Kings 18:13 that Sennacherib came up
against Judah in HezekiahÕs 14th year and since according to 2nd
Kings 18:2 (cf. 2nd Chronicles 29:1) we know that Hezekiah reigned a
total of 29 years, it is assumed by most from simple math that his sickness
must have been in his 14th year (14+15=29). This may be the proper understanding,
especially since the simple, obvious answers are usually the best.
However,
the term translated as Ôin those daysÕ from Hebrew is often used to mean in a
large period of years. The term is ההם בימים
and is frequently used in the bible.
It is used in Judges 18:1 where it is used to say that at the same time
that the events of chapter 17 happened that the events of chapter 18
happened. However the events of
chapter 17 may well cover a period of more than 10 years and in fact the term
may refer to the whole period preceding the monarchy. This seems to be the case as it is used in Judges 17:6. Its use in Genesis 6:4 seems to apply
to a time period of at least 120 years before the flood and possibly to a much
larger period. In Exodus 2:11 it
apparently refers to the period covering Moses first 80 years. The one thing
that seems to characterize its use in these and every other place in the bible
is that it refers to a general time period of unspecified length when a certain
event or chain of events was happening.
Thus
in the account of HezekiahÕs sickness, this term refers to the whole time period
in which the events of the previous verses happened, in other words the time
period from HezekiahÕs 14th year and SennacheribÕs invasion until
SennacheribÕs death and the reigning of his son Esarhaddon in his place. For these are the events that are recorded
immediately preceding Isaiah 38:1 and 2nd Kings 20:1. Thus the term
Ôin those daysÕ allows for HezekiahÕs sickness to have occurred any time
between SennacheribÕs invasion and his death in 681.
In
2nd Kings 21:1ff we read ÒManasseh
was 12 years old when he became king, and he reigned 55 years in JerusalemÉand
he did evil in the sight of the LORDÓ Thus Manasseh lived a total of 67 years. Yet are we to suppose that righteous
Hezekiah lived only 54 years and this after his life was blessed to be extended
by 15 years? This is 13 years
shorter than his wicked son whereas Hezekiah is recorded as being one of the
most righteous kings in Judah. The writer of kings wrote: ÒHe trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so
that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were
before himÓ (2nd
Kings 18:5)
Additionally
after HezekiahÕs recovery, Hezekiah wrote a Psalm recounting the event. It is recorded in Isaiah 38:10-20. In verse 10 Hezekiah says ÒI am (have been) deprived the remainder
of my years.Ó Psalm
90:10, the prayer of Moses, states ÒThe
days of our lives (lit.
Ôour yearsÕ) are seventy years; and
if by reason of strength they are eighty years, Yet their boast is only labor
and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.Ó Hezekiah
is complaining using the PsalmistÕs term Ômy yearsÕ, in other words Hezekiah
was saying he was dying in his illness before he reached his full 70
years. If HezekiahÕs sickness
happened at the end of his 29 year reign it would have been when he was about
54 years old. If his lifespan was extended 15 years from this point he would
have lived to age 69, or allowing for partial years being added to each of
these rounded figures, he would have lived to the full 70 years. Thus his lifespan would have been longer
than his wicked son by 3 years and he would have not been Ôdeprived of his
yearsÕ.
Further,
since we know that Manasseh began to reign when he was 12 (2nd Kings
21:1), he would have been born no earlier than the 17th year of
HezekiahÕs reign. Yet if we are to
say that Hezekiah wrote his Psalm (Isaiah 38:10ff) in his 14th year,
how will it be explained what he wrote: ÒThe
living, the living man, he shall praise You, As I do this day; the father shall
make known Your truth to the children (lit. ÔsonsÔ).Ó (Isaiah 38:19) How could Hezekiah tell anything to his ÔsonsÕ if Manasseh
wasnÕt even born yet? Presumably,
since Manasseh inherited the throne, he was HezekiahÕs first born. This indicates to me that Hezekiah
experienced his sickness some time after he had already born sons and thus some
period of time after his 17th year.
Since
I have just shown that HezekiahÕs illness happened some time after his 17th
year, the connection that many make between his 14th year, the
additional 15 years, and his 29 year reign is null. Thus Hezekiah could have been sick in his 29th
year instead. At that point when
he thought he was going to die, he would have set his 12 year old son on the
throne. When Hezekiah recovered he
would not have removed his son, but rather would have experienced a co-regency
with him. The years of the
co-regency were accredited to Manasseh and not to Hezekiah. Thus Hezekiah reigned 29 years by himself,
He and his son reigned together 15 years and then Manasseh reigned another 30
years by himself after his 70 year old father died.
This
theory also fits well with the fact that it is unlikely that a 12 year old boy
would be accounted as being as wicked as the description we have concerning
Manasseh. Thus ManassehÕs evil
deeds would have started sometime after his fatherÕs death, when Manasseh was
27 years old. The deeds of
Manasseh as recorded in 2nd Kings 21 fit with the works of an adult,
not a child. Especially when in
verse 6 he makes his own son pass through the fire. Presumably this was his firstborn.
Since
Manasseh had apparently sacrificed his first born, his second born would have
been the one to inherit the throne.
In 2nd Kings 21:19 we read that Amon, ManassehÕs son began to
reign at age 22. This means he was
born when Manasseh was about 45, and thus Manasseh would probably have had his
first son in his 40Õs. This fits
well with the idea that Manasseh started going astray at age 27 after his
fatherÕs death, for it allows him 13 years to develop into such as wicked person
so as to Ôcause his son to pass through the fireÕ at about age 40.
After
HezekiahÕs recovery from illness an envoy from Merodach-baladan arrived to
congratulate him on his recovery.
The quantity of treasure that Hezekiah possessed, which he showed to this
envoy from Babylon does not at all fit with the situation in HezekiahÕs 14th
year. For in that year, according
to 2nd Kings 18:15ff, Hezekiah gave the king of Assyria all his
silver that was found in his house and in the house of the LORD, such that he
even stripped the pillars and the doors which he had overlaid. Obviously some time would have had to
pass for Hezekiah to again accumulate such a large quantity of wealth that the
BabylonianÕs were impressed. 2nd
Chronicles gives us a clue as to where this wealth came from: ÒAnd when he (Sennacherib) had gone into
the temple of his god, some of his own offspring struck him down with the sword
there. Thus the LORD saved
Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king
of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every
side. And many brought gifts to
the LORD at Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was
exalted in the sight of all nations thereafter. In those days Hezekiah was sickÉÓ (2nd Chronicles 32:21b-24a)
If
HezekiahÕs sickness was indeed in the 29th year of his reign, this
would be ample time to regain riches and wealth.
Thus
Hezekiah, according to this theory, came to power in 725/6, had his first
encounter with Sennacherib in his 14th year wherein he lost his
treasures, then gained new treasure afterward, as late as 697 became sick,
anointed his son Manasseh as king, but then recovered and co-reigned with
Manasseh until c.682/1.
I
do not see a strong contradiction with 2nd Chronicles 32:33 and 2nd
Kings 20:21 which seem to have Manasseh beginning to reign only after
HezekiahÕs death. The language
used is similar to that of the other cases of succession to the throne recorded
in the bible, yet it is not likely that the sons were only enthroned after
their fathers died, rather they would have been enthroned during their fatherÕs
lifetime, when their fathers sensed that death was near. This is the case with David and Solomon
and was likely the usual trend.
Exceptions to this trend are noted by a statement such as that found in
2nd Kings 23:30: ÒÉAnd
the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, anointed him, and made
him king in his fatherÕs place.Ó This anointing by the
people instead of by the father occurred because Josiah died unexpectedly in
battle with Pharaoh Necho.
The
obvious problem with this theory concerning HezekiahÕs sickness is that
Merodach-baladan, according to the scriptures was still king of Babylon
immediately after HezekiahÕs recovery.
Additionally
Josephus records that HezekiahÕs sickness was shortly after SennacheribÕs
invasion, in his fourteenth year, that Hezekiah lived 54 years and reigned 29
years. He also states that
Hezekiah at the time of his sickness was childless (Ant. 10.2.1ff). Thus Josephus was apparently not
familiar with any tradition that reflected the above theory.
Gallagher
places HezekiahÕs illness before the invasion of Sennacherib for three
reasons. Firstly due to
Merodach-baladan being in power as king of Babylon, secondly the promise to
save Jerusalem prophesied (Isaiah 38:6) to Hezekiah and thirdly due to the
quantity of HezekiahÕs treasure at the time indicating that Sennacherib had not
yet taken it from him (Gallagher p144 note 5).
To
the first I would reply that Merodach-baladan was in power in 722-710, again in
703/4 and again was fighting Sennacherib in 700. To his second proof it is sufficient to say that the
prophesy in Isaiah 38:6 would fit more logically with the period after Hezekiah
paid tribute, otherwise it might seem like a failure. The promise of deliverance would more logically follow the
oppression already experienced including the capturing of many cities in Judah,
and HezekiahÕs payment of heavy tribute, than to have come before. Concerning his third point, a
simple reading of the scripture shows that Isaiah prophesied that the treasure
that was shown to the Babylonian envoy would be taken to Babylon, not to
Assyria. This necessitates
HezekiahÕs illness and the arrival of the envoy from Merodach-baladan to have
occurred sometime after Hezekiah gave most all his treasure to
Sennacherib. As already shown,
enough time would have had to pass between HezekiahÕs paying tribute and the
arrival of the envoy in order for Hezekiah to regain his wealth (even though
Sennacherib did not get all of the original as indicated by Isaiah 39:6).
Merodach-baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon
ÒAt that time Berodach-Baladan the son of
Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard
that Hezekiah had been sick.Ó (2nd Kings 20:12)
The same account is recorded in Isaiah 39:1ff where his name is more
properly spelt Merodach-Baladan.
According to modern scholarship he reigned in Babylon between 721 and
710 BC, at which point he was driven from Babylon, yet apparently continued as
chief of his tribe (Wiseman p162; ISBE p258). He again regained the throne for nine months in 703. (Hallo
p145) And then apparently later again attempted some sort of rebellion.
The
arrival of letters and a present from Merodach-baladan to Hezekiah may have
occurred during the period after Merodach-baladan had re-ascended the throne of
Babylon. But this is not very
likely, due to the brief period he was again in power. At any rate, even this date of 703 is
too early according to modern reckoning which places the invasion of
Sennacherib into Judah two years later.
However Òin the
following year (700) Sennacherib returned to Babylonia to put down a rebellion
by Bal-ibni and Merodach-baladan. The former was sent to Assyria, and the
latter soon afterward died. Ashurnadin-shum, the son of Sennacherib, was then
crowned king of Babylon. A campaign into Cilicia and Cappadocia followed.Ó (ISBE volume 9 p698)
For
the previous theory of HezekiahÕs sickness to work Merodach-baladan would have
to be alive at very least and preferably still in power.
The Assyrian account of SennacheribÕs invasion
SennacheribÕs
own account of this invasion, as recorded in the Taylor Prism, is as follows:
ÒIn my third campaign I marched against Hatti. Luli, king of
SidonÉfled far overseas and perishedÉIn the continuation of my campaign I
besieged Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Banai-Barqa, Azuru, cities belonging to Sidqia who
did not bow to my feet quickly (enough); I conquered (them) and carried their
spoils away. The officials, the
patricians and the (common) people of Ekron - who had thrown Padi, their king, into fetters (because he
was) loyal to (his) solemn oath (sworn) by the god Ashur, and had handed him
over to Hezekiah, the Jew (and ) he (Hezekiah) held him in prison, unlawfully,
as if he (Padi) be an enemy-had become agraid and had called (for help) upon
the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot(-corps) and the cavalry of the
king of Ethiopia, an army beyond counting-and they (actually) had come to their
assistance. In the plain of
Eltekeh, their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their
weapons. Upon a trust (-inspiring)
oracle (given) by Ashur, my lord, I fought with them and inflicted a defeat
upon them...I assaulted Ekron and killed the officials and patricians who had
committed the crime and hung their bodies on poles surrounding the cityÉI made
Padi, their king, come form Jerusalem and set him as their lord on the throne,
imposing upon him the tribute (due) to me (as) overlordÉAs to Hezekiah, the
Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities,
walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and
conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth-)ramps, and battering-rams
brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers,
(using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people, young and old, male
and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond
counting, and considered (them) booty.
Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird
in a cage. I surrounded him with
earthwork in order to molest those who were leaving his cityÕs gate. His towns which I had plundered, I took
away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi,
king of Ekron, and Sillibel, king of Gaza. Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the
tribute and the Katru-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord which I imposed
(later) upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, whom the
terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops
which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to
strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly
city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones,
antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches (inlaid) w3ith ivory, nimedu-chairs
(inlaid) with ivory, elephant-hides, ebony-wood, box-wood (and) all kinds of
valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female
musicians. In order to deliver the
tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.Ó (ANET 1950 p287-8)
Comparison of the Accounts
Both
the bible and SennacheribÕs account inform us of some sort of subjugation of
the Philistines by Hezekiah and both inform us that this was before
SennacheribÕs invasion.
Though
many similarities between the Assyrian account and 2nd Kings
18:13-16 can be seen, at least one discrepancy should also be noted. Although the quantity of gold is the
same, the quantity of silver is almost triple in the Assyrian account. However its easy to believe that
someone fudged the numbers here, this may simply be what Harrison calls
Òcharacteristic exaggerationÓ (1971 p237). The important similarities include the taking of fortified
cities, the taking of tribute including matching quantities of gold, the
previous subjection of Hezekiah to the king of Assyria and that he rebelled
Though
no mention of the devastation of SennacheribÕs army is made, this is no
surprise. Harrison states ÒÉdefeats or failures were invariably
ignored when chronicles were being compiled by Near Eastern nations.Ó (Harrison p237)
It
is important to note that all the events that are recorded here most likely did
not happen in a single year. For
example PadiÕs exile and arrest by Hezekiah, his being liberated by command of
Sennacherib and subsequently being reinstated into power, then HezekiahÕs
territory being taken by Sennacherib and his giving it to Padi, seem like too
many events for one year.
Additionally this record states that Hezekiah sent the tribute ÔlaterÕ
after Sennacherib had returned to Nineveh, thus after the campaign was
over. It is possible that
the events of several years are recorded here.
Also
it should be noted that this inscription states at the beginning that it was
SennacheribÕs third campaign. Yet
this is not automatically equivalent to the third year of his sole reign. Nor
does anything in the text imply that all the events in the text refer to his
third campaign.
Death of Sennacherib
The biblical account gives the
impression that Sennacherib died shortly after his retreat form the land of
Judah. However this may be
explained away as being the fault of the reader and not the writer, in that the
writer does not specify an amount of elapsed time. We the modern readers only
assume that the events happened back to back. Yet a larger problem remains: ÒThen the LORD sent an angel who cut down
every mighty man of valor, leader, and captain in the camp of the king of
Assyria. So he returned shamefaced
to his own land. And when he
(Sennacherib) had gone into the temple of his god, some of his own offspring
struck him down with the sword there.
Thus the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the
hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and
guided them on every side. And
many brought gifts to the LORD at Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of
Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations thereafter.Ó (2nd Chronicles 32:21-23) It seems that for the author to refer
to SennacheribÕs death as being part of the way the LORD saved Hezekiah, that
his death must have been in HezekiahÕs lifetime, otherwise this statement would
seem illogical. The solution to
this problem may be what I proposed above, namely that HezekiahÕs sickness was
in his 29th year instead of his 14th, thus allowing
Hezekiah to live until 681, the year of SennacheribÕs death. Even so the biblical account does not
make it sound as though Hezekiah had to wait for complete deliverance from
Sennacherib until the very last months of his life.
Reconciling the two accounts
Many attempts have been made to understand the Assyrian and
the Biblical histories in light of each other. Most attempts fall into one of the following categories:
One invasion scenario
This scenario states that the whole
biblical account of Hezekiah versus Sennacherib is that which happened in
HezekiahÕs 14th year.
This scenario is based on a few
similarities between the biblical text and the Assyrian account. These include the 30 talents of gold
that are recorded in both and the capturing of the cities of Judah. Also that the Philistines had become
some what subjected to Hezekiah.
Additionally the Assyrian account agrees with the biblical account in
that it specifically excludes Jerusalem as having been captured, though this
would fit into the biblical scenario at any point since the Assyrians never
captured Jerusalem at any time.
The
problem with this scenario is that the bible records a crushing loss for
Sennacherib via the angel of YHVH killing 185,000 men in the camp of the Assyrians
such that we read, ÒSo
Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned, and remained in
Nineveh.Ó (2nd
Kings 19:36) After which he was killed by his sons. The statement that he ÔremainedÕ in Nineveh would indicate
that due to the devastation of his army he didnÕt go on any more
campaigns. While this would fit
okay with the later part of his reign, it doesnÕt fit well with his 3rd
year for he went on other campaigns after this, or at least it appears so.
Two invasion scenario
Many
scholars claim 2 separate invasions are recorded. (Bright p298) These scholars place one invasion in
701 and the other either before or after that time. Generally 2nd Kings 18:14-16 is considered as a
separate event, usually considered to be the invasion of 701 with 18:17ff being
a later invasion not recorded in the Assyrian annals. Some also make the division of the two accounts to be at
19:9b. Other ideas for divisions are also offered. Gallagher gives a good overview of this theory and the
various ways of dividing the Biblical text on pp 145-159. I refer the reader to his work in spite
of his annoying habit of quoting from German sources and not providing the
English translation. I will
therefore only briefly touch on the subject here.
Consistent
with this theory, two different events are seen recorded in 2nd
Kings 18. Verses 13(or14)-16 are
the event that happened in HezekiahÕs 14th year. The facts are very simple, Hezekiah had
rebelled against the king of Assyria (2nd Kings 18:7) and therefore the
king of Assyria invaded at which point Hezekiah says ÒI have done wrongÉÓ (18:14) and pays a heavy financial
penalty to get out of trouble.
Having received the penalty the king of Assyria would have no reason to
continue to attack Hezekiah.
Additionally at this point in time (712/13 BC according to the Biblical
text) the king of Assyria (albeit Sargon II and not Sennacherib) was having
trouble with the Babylonians and would have gladly settled the problems with
Hezekiah by receiving financial tribute.
Verses 18:17ff then record a second incident between the two kings
eleven years later in about HezekiahÔs 25th year (701 BC). This time HezekiahÕs reaction is
completely different and instead of confessing his wrong, he prepares for
battle by stopping up the springs and preparing for war. This would be the account that the
Chronicler also records in 2nd Chronicles 32 and that Isaiah records
in chapter 36. Note that
Chronicles does not record a date for the events of this chapter.
This
idea has immediate appeal due to the fact that it seems illogical that after
Hezekiah paid such heavy tribute saying ÒI
have done wrong; turn away from me; whatever you impose on me I will payÓ (2nd Kings 18:14b), that
the king of Assyria would still want to continue his attack. The natural assumption after reading
through 18:16 is that the king of Assyria was pacified and went home. These brief verses fit perfectly with
the Assyrian account, whereas the rest of the Kings account through
SennacheribÕs death in 19:37 has no parallel in the Assyrian account, with the
possible exception of the reliance upon Egypt in 2nd Kings 18:21.
One
possible way to divide the text is at 2nd Kings 19:9b by saying that
the king of Assyria returns at that point to Nineveh. This is based on the translation of the Hebrew word וישב to mean Ôand he returnedÕ (home). Normally the word here is translated
Ôand he againÕ (sent messengers).
Either way, the parallel account in Isaiah 37:9 does not even contain
the word at all. However the fact
that the messengers were sent with a letter (Isaiah 37:14) seems to indicate
that the high officials that the king of Assyria had previously sent were not
used, but rather a long distance communication may be indicated.
The
two invasion scenario may find support within the biblical text at 2nd
Kings 19:36 where it is stated ÒSo
Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained
at NinevehÓ. By stating that he remained in
Nineveh seems to indicate that he did not personally go on any more military
campaigns. The author could have
simply said that he didnÕt come into the land of Judah again, but instead he
said he remained at Nineveh.
Yet from SennacheribÕs records we know that he had other campaigns into
other lands after his initial invasion into Judah. However we also know that he did not personally take part in
two of the later campaigns (Honor p5).
There
may be evidence of a second invasion by Sennacherib in one of the Bas-Reliefs
which recounts the taking of Lachish.
Hallo states ÒSome
scholars, however, have argued that if the siege of Lachish was considered
important enough to warrant the fashioning of a series of sculptures, it would
have certainly been deemed important enough to have been mentioned in the
Annals. Since there is no mention
of Lachish in any of the inscriptions, the siege of Lachish, in accordance with
this view, could not have taken place during any of the campaigns described in
the Annals.Ó (Honor
pp9-10) Thus according to Honor,
they must consider the Biblical account of the attack on Lachish to be the
gloss of a later editor or for Lachish to have been attacked twice by
Sennacherib, the first time he won easily and thus it wasnÕt important enough
to record and the second time Lachish resisted harder and was only taken after
a long siege. I would note however
that the Biblical account does not say Sennacherib took Lachish, but rather
simply that he attacked it and apparently had to leave the attack to go to
Libnah.
If
one fully accepts the Biblical record and the two invasion scenario, the first
invasion in HezekiahÕs 14th year is then dated to 712/3 BC when
Sennacherib is crown prince and the second invasion is that of 701 BC in
HezekiahÕs 25th year.
HezekiahÕs sickness then occurs after this 25th year and
perhaps not event until his 29th year (see above). Accordingly the Assyrian records are
viewed as referring at least in part to events of SennacheribÕs days as crown
prince and general in the army.
The
Jubilee
The
two invasion scenario may also find support from 2nd Kings 19:29 (cf.
Isaiah 37:30) which is apparently the description of sabbatical year and a
Jubilee year. ÒThis shall be a sign to you: You shall
eat this year such as grows of itself, And in the second year what springs from
the same; Also in the third year sow and reap, Plant vineyards and eat the
fruit of them.Ó The Sabbatical year and the Jubilee
year are described in Leviticus 20.
Though Jones noticed this, he apparently misunderstood the scriptures
and calculated the Jubilee year as occurring every 49 years (Jones
pp173-6). The Jubilee was supposed
to happen every 50 years (Lev. 25:10) from the time the children of Israel
entered the Ôpromised landÕ.
Though the date of the exodus is much debated, most scholars will admit
that the picture that Masoretic text presents is that the Exodus occurred in
1491 or 1492 BC. Thus calculations
based on the MT places the entrance into the land of Canaan around 1451. Assuming that was the understanding the
Jews of HezekiahÕs time had of their own history, regardless of its accuracy
(which is debated by some scholars), they would have considered 702 BC as a
Jubilee year and 703 as a sabbatical year. This then places the biblical account of deliverance from
the Assyrians in 703 or only 2 years different from the Assyrian schools
reckoning. These two years could
easily be accounted for by simply shifting the date of the exodus 2 years,
which would not be impossible, or by shifting the Assyrian record 2 years. Either way the Jubilee may point to a
second invasion several years after the first invasion in HezekiahÕs 14th
year. On the other hand one might
say this Jubilee theory points to HezekiahÕs 14th year as occurring
in 701 and thus only one invasion, and thus a co-regency with his father during
the period of the deportation of Israel.
The
problem with the idea that the bible describes two invasions is that while this
might be possible in the account in Kings, the other records (Isaiah and
Chronicles) seem to make the two events into one.
Three invasion scenario
The
three invasion scenario sees two invasions of Sennacherib accounted in the
bible as does the two invasion scenario above, yet states that neither is that
which is recorded in the Assyrian annals. This view is promoted by Floyd Nolen Jones. While this and a number of other
scenarios may be possible due to our relative lack of information of all the
events that transpired in SennacheribÕs reign, it does not have much
appeal. Its main point is that
there is no overlap at all in the biblical and Assyrian accounts and each is to
be treated separately. It also
holds that the dates assigned to SennacheribÕs reign are not accurate, in other
words, Sennacherib was reigning as king, coregent or crown prince in 712 BC
(HezekiahÕs 14th year).
The Chronological problem 701 and HezekiahÕs 14th
year
The Problem Stated
Unfortunately,
none of the above theories of how many invasions happened, in any way solves
the problem of chronology regarding Sennacherib being called king of Assyria
and having his first or only campaign in HezekiahÕs 14th year
according to the Bible. The Bible
seems to firmly place the 14th year of Hezekiah in or about 713
BC. Yet Assyrian records seem to
firmly place SennacheribÕs first invasion into Judah in his 3rd year
or later and thus in 701 BC which would have been at least HezekiahÕs 25th
year.
Note
that for the purpose of this paper the year for the Babylonian destruction of
the temple at Jerusalem is considered to be 586 BC. Other dates have been proposed and may actually be more
credible. This date is chosen due
to its wide use in many scholarly works.
The Biblical Chronology
The
Northern kingdom of Israel is recorded in the bible as being deported in
HezekiahÕs sixth year. From that
point to the destruction of the temple, the biblical chronology provides about
134 years which is the amount (within a year) of time that is arrived at from
extra-biblical records. This
number is arrived at by simply adding the remainder of HezekiahÕs years to the lengths
of the reigns of the Judean kings who succeed him down to the 11th
year of Zedekiah. The quantities
given for the length of these reigns are the same in the book of Kings and the
book of Chronicles.
The chart below gives the reigns of
the Judean kings for this period.
King |
Reigned |
1and 2 Kings |
1 and 2 Chronicles |
Hezekiah |
29 |
2nd Kings 18:2 |
2nd Chronicles 29:1 |
Manasseh |
55 |
2nd Kings 21:1 |
2nd Chronicles 33:1 |
Amon |
2 |
2nd Kings 21:19 |
2nd Chronicles 33:21 |
Josiah |
31 |
2nd Kings 22:1 |
2nd Chronicles 34:1 |
Jehoahaz |
3 months |
2nd Kings 23:31 |
2nd Chronicles 36:2 |
Jehoiakim (Eliakim) |
11 |
2nd Kings 23:36 |
2nd Chronicles 36:5 |
Jehoiahcin |
3 months (+10 days in Chron) |
2nd Kings 24:8 |
2nd Chronicles 36:9 |
Zedekiah |
11 |
2nd Kings 24:18 |
2nd Chronicles 36:11 |
Total |
139 years, 6 months, 10 days |
|
|
Since
the deportation of the Northern tribes happened in HezekiahÕs 6th
year, the bible provides a total of 133 years 6 months and 10 days, or roughly
134 years between the deportation of Judah in 586 and the deportation of the
Northern kingdom of Israel which is thus placed in 720 (a one year variance
with modern scholarship).
The
following chart reflects what the biblical record seems to indicate concerning
historical dates, and is provided for reference. No attempt has been made to reconcile this chart to
extra-biblical sources for which it may or may not agree. The date of the Exodus is based on the
record in I Kings 6:1 of 480 years from the Exodus to SolomonÕs fourth year and
also upon simply adding the reigns of the kings of Judah. Only 4 years of co-regency are allowed
for around the time of Jehoshaphat.
Year BC |
Acting Kings / Leader |
Event /Situation |
1491/2 |
Moses 80 |
Egypt suffers plagues, Exodus, Pharaoh dies, |
1451/2 |
Joshua |
Invasion of Canaan, Jericho and Ai destroyed |
741 |
Ahaz |
|
725 |
Hezekiah 1st |
|
720 |
HezekiahÕs 6th |
Israel deported, normally dated 721 |
712 |
HezekiahÕs 14th |
Sennacherib invades, receives tribute |
696 |
Manasseh |
|
641 |
Amon |
|
639 |
Josiah |
|
608 |
Jehoahaz |
Reigns 3 months, removed by Pharaoh Necho |
608 |
JehoiakimÕs 1st |
Son of Josiah installed by Pharaoh Necho |
605 or 604 |
JehoiakimÕs 4th or 3rd |
Daniel deported. Nebuchadnezzar crowned. |
597 |
Jehoiachin |
reigns 3 months and is taken to Babylon |
597 |
ZedekiahÕs 1st |
|
586 |
ZedekiahÕs 11th |
Destruction of Jerusalem and temple |
Based
on the 586 BC date for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the
chronology developed from the Biblical accounts seems to place the 6th
year of Hezekiah in 720 BC, and thus the 14th year of Hezekiah in
712. However most modern scholars add an additional year to this chronology and
thus the 6th of Hezekiah is placed by them in 721 and his 14th
year in 713. This difference of
one year is not very critical and various methods could be used to account for
it. The most likely explanation is
that when Pharaoh Necho removed Jehoahaz and put him in prison in Hamath, that
some time passed till Necho appointed Jehoiakim as king. This is evidenced in two ways. Firstly it is a good distance to Hamath
and back. Secondly and more
importantly we read that Jehoahaz was 23 years old when he became king, yet
Jehoiakim his brother was 25 years old when he became king. Since these two were brothers and since
the firstborn was the normal heir to the throne, some time must have passed for
Jehoiakim to reach an older age upon his ascension than that of his older
brother Jehoahaz, when he was placed on the throne. The difference between
their birthdates need not be great if they were born to different wives. Thus a 2 year interregnum may have
occurred. This would allow for the
133 ½ years that the bible seems to account between the deportations of
Israel and Judah to grow to 135 ½ years. Of course the idea that Jehoiakim was the younger brother is
not explicitly stated in the Bible, yet even if he wasnÕt, some time may have
passed before Necho made him king.
What
is problematic is the age at which Ahaz becomes father to Hezekiah. ÒAhaz
was 20 years old when he became king, and he reigned 16 years in JerusalemÉÓ (2nd Kings 16:2). ÒSo
Ahaz rested with his fathers, and was buriedÉThen Hezekiah his son reigned in
his place.Ó (16:20) ÒHezekiah
the son of AhazÉwas 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned 29 years
in JerusalemÉÓ (18:1-2).
Apparently Ahaz was only 11 years old when he had Hezekiah. If that isnÕt difficult enough,
apparently Hezekiah may not have been the oldest son. In 2nd Kings 16:3 Ahaz is recorded as making Ôhis
son pass through the fireÕ. (2nd
Chronicles 28:3 makes ÔsonÕ plural)
It is generally thought that this practice refers to the sacrificing of
the firstborn son to a deity.
Additionally 2nd Chronicles 28:7 states ÒZichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, killed
Maaseiah the kingÕs
(AhazÕs) sonÉÓ. This was in war with Pekah king of Israel. If this was a son who was killed in
battle, a longer overlap than 3 years must be assumed between Pekah and Ahaz
for Ahaz to have had a son old enough to go to war. At any rate this son would seem to have been the firstborn
and therefore due to these two factors, Hezekiah would have been born in AhazÕs
single digit years!! The solution to
this may be that Hezekiah was a son by marriage. The idea being that all of AhazÕs sons died childless (in
war and human sacrifice), so that Hezekiah became AhazÕs adopted heir by
marriage to one of his daughters.
Though this does not directly affect our current study, it does affect
the impression one gets of the reliability of the text at this point and is
therefore included.
The Passover in HezekiahÕs first year
In
2nd Chronicles 29 and 30 we read of the Passover celebration that
occurred in the first year of HezekiahÕs reign. It seems obvious that it was held in the first year of his
reign due to its being held in the 2nd month instead of the 1st
month, since in the first month the priests were still busy cleansing the
temple, as we read ÒNow they
began to sanctify on the first day of the first month, and on the eighth day of
the month they came to the vestibule of the LORD. So they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days, and
on the sixteenth day of the first month they finishedÓ (2nd Chronicles
29:17) Since the cleansing lasted
till the sixteenth of the month, it was already too late to celebrate the
Passover which was supposed to happen on the 14th of the first
month. So they celebrated the
Passover on the 14th of the second month, based on Numbers
9:6-13. More importantly,
the cause of the delay of the Passover to the second month was that the priests
had not all sanctified themselves (29:34 and 30:3). Apparently all the events of chapter 29 happened
in either the first month or the early part of the second, as it is written: ÒÉSo the service of the house of the
LORD was set in order. Then
Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced that God had prepared the people, since
the events took place so suddenly.Ó (2nd Chronicles 29:35b-36) The statement in both 29:34 and 30:3
about a sufficient number of priests not having sanctified themselves,
chronologically places the two verses in the same time period.
The
fact that Hezekiah invited the Northern tribes to participate is strong
indication that they had not yet experienced the deportation of 721 BC and were
still living as a separate nation.
ÒAnd Hezekiah sent to all Israel and
Judah, and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to
the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, to keep the Passover to the LORD God of
Israel. For the king and his
leaders and all the assembly in Jerusalem had agreed to keep the Passover in
the second month. For they could
not keep it at the regular time, because a sufficient number of priests had not
consecrated themselves, nor had the people gathered together at JerusalemÉSo
they resolved to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to
DanÉÓ (2nd
Chronicles 30:1-5)
ÒSo the runners passed from city to city
through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun; but they
laughed at them and mocked them.
Nevertheless some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves
and came to Jerusalem.Ó (2nd Chronicles 30:10-11)
Verse 18 additionally mentions Issachar. The fact that the Northern tribes were invited and
were present at the Passover is clearly seen throughout chapter 30. The fact that they are still described
by their individual tribal names further testifies to the fact that the
deportation during HezekiahÕs sixth year had not yet happened.
Josephus
also testifies that Israel was not yet removed and still had her king (Ant.
9.13.265). The placement of
HezekiahÕs Passover of his first year in the period preceding the deportation
of the Northern tribes is internal evidence that he was in power before 721BC
and thus supports the other straight forward claims to such by the biblical
writers.
In
the message Hezekiah sent by the hands of the runners, we do read of some of
the Israelites from the Northern tribes having been deported at the hand of the
kings of Assyria, but this refers to earlier events, especially the following
account ÒIn the days of Pekah
king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth
Maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali;
and he carried them captive to Assyria. (2nd Kings 15:29) This account was about 3 years
before HezekiahÕs Passover according to the text.
It
should be noted however that during JosiahÕs Passover years later, he too
gathers people from the Northern tribes, yet at that time the kingdom of Israel
had already been uprooted.
Additionally during his cleansing of the land he goes to the territory
of certain Northern tribes. See 2nd
Chronicles 34:6,9,21 and 35:18.
The Assyrian Chronology
The
Assyrian Chronology for this period is largely based on Eponym lists. These fragmentary records have been
checked against PtolemyÕs canon, for these two sources overlap in the period
from 747-648 BC. (Jones p152)
Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) lived in the 2nd Century A.D.
and was a Greek astronomer who believed in a geocentric system for the
universe. He carried out his main
work in Alexandria Egypt between 127 and 145 AD. (EB 18 p812) He was not concerned with history, but
rather used the names of Assyrian kings to mark years in history in line with
his interest in astronomical records.
A
footnote accompanying the Bur-Sagale eponym states that an eclipse of the sun
took place in the month of June.
By calculating the year of this eclipse, a supposed absolute date in
Assyrian chronology is obtained.
Then upon this date is hung the chronology of the Assyrian monarchs
whose relative reigns are organized according to PtolemyÕs canon and the
Assyrian Kings Lists (for Shalmaneser 5th and earlier). The generally accepted date for the
eclipse of Bur-Sagale is June 15 763 (ABD IV p735).
From the Anchor Bible Dictionary and Shigeo YamadaÕs work I
have assembled the following generally accepted chronology:
Dates |
Monarch |
Notes |
1075-934 |
- |
a period of decline for Assyria |
934-912 |
Ashur-dan 2nd |
|
911-891 |
Adad-Narari 2nd |
|
890-884 |
Tukulti-Ninurta 2nd |
|
883-859 |
Ashurbanipal 2nd |
|
858-824 |
Shalmaneser 3rd |
|
823-811 |
Shamshi-Adad 5th |
|
810-783 |
Adad-narari 3rd |
|
782-773 |
Shalmanesar 4th |
records are wanting here |
772-755 |
Ashur-dan 3rd |
records are wanting here |
754-745 |
Ashur-nerari 5th |
records are wanting here |
744-727 |
Tiglath-pilesar 3rd |
|
726-722 |
Shalmaneser 5th |
conquers Israel |
721-705 |
Sargon 2nd |
|
704-681 |
Sennacherib |
|
680-669 |
Esarhaddon |
|
668-627 |
Ashurbanipal |
last significant king |
612 |
Fall of Assyria to Babylon |
End of the Assyrian Empire |
Note that the Assyrian Kings Lists
(AKL) only provide information until Shalmaneser 5th and are
therefore useless in determining the reigns of Sargon and Sennacherib. One of the best preserved, the
Khorsabad List, specifically states that it itself is a copy of an earlier
list. (Yamada p3)
Difficulties with Assyrian Chronology
A.
Bernard Knapp in his article on Mesopotamian Chronology in the ABD states ÒFor the historical era, there exist long
lists of actual year names, king lists, historical chronicles, building
inscriptions, and other written records-often based on or mentioning
astronomical observations-that allow absolute dating. Yet it must be borne in mind that, for
much of Mesopotamian history, accurate dates BC are hard to come by; sources
often seem to contradict one another.
More recent dates are almost always more accurate and have a lower
margin of error.Ó (ABD
IV p715)
Although
the Assyrian chronology is often considered absolute, several scholars have
noted significant problems or deficits in the Assyrian records.
Shanks
states ÒWe have no Assyrian historical records
from Shalmaneser 5thÕs reign, but the general sequence of events can be
reconstructed from the Eponym Chronicle, itself poorly preserved at this point,
in combination with information that survives third-hand from the annals of
Tyre.Ó (Shanks p171) He
goes on to state ÒNothing
of the Tyrian annals survives in the original Phoenician, but they were
translated into Greek by an obscure Hellenistic author known as Menander of
Ephesus or Pergamon. MenanderÕs
work has also been lost, but portions of his translation of the annals of Tyre
are cited in the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. For the background to the fall of
Samaria, the relevant passage in Josephus is Antiq. 9.283-287.Ó (Shanks p327 footnote 107 from
p171)
Sargon
2nd boasts of having besieged and captured Samaria; however the
bible states that it was Shalmaneser.
The Biblical account has been shown to be the correct one by comparison
to the Babylonian Chronicle, which is a record of annual events begun in the
middle of the eighth century BC. (Shanks p172) Here again reliance on the
Assyrian records to date events in the ancient near East is entirely
misleading. Since Sargon lied
about this it is also very possible he lied about being the one to deport the
Israelites.
Hallo
states concerning the history of Assyria in the second half of the 7th
century ÒThe principle
historical source for these years is the Babylonian Chronicle, recently
augmented by important new finds.
Assyrian royal records are sparse, and even the order of the eponyms is
uncertain after 648.Ó
(Hallo p142-3)
PtolemyÕs
Canon, which is the basis for reconstructing the Assyrian Eponyms in their
proper order marks the years 705-703 as ÔkinglessÕ (CAH III p62)
Proposed solutions to the chronological problem
715 BC ascension year for Hezekiah
Based
on the modern understanding of Assyrian Chronology combined with two verses
that mention HezekiahÕs 14th year (which are apparently supported by
the account of his illness), one would be inclined to place HezekiahÕs
ascension year in c.715 BC. In an
attempt not to contradict the scriptures that clearly place HezekiahÕs
ascension year before the deportation of the Northern tribes in 721 BC (2nd
Kings 18:10), some scholars claim some sort of co-regency of Hezekiah with his
father Ahaz (Halo p140). This
co-regency they claim would have lasted about 10+ years, however this theory
seems to throw all the biblical and extra biblical data into nonsense. For according to it Ahaz would have
been king of Judah at the time of the deportation of the Northern tribes, and
Pekah would have been king of Israel, and apparently Hoshea would never have
existed. In other words, to move
HezekiahÕs reign around by 10+ years is to force all the other reigns of the
kings of Judah and Israel to be likewise adjusted. While this may actually work okay for earlier kings, it is a
major problem concerning the reigns of the kings who lived after Hezekiah. Upon close investigation one will
realize that those 10+ years will have to be subtracted from ManassehÕs and/or
JosiahÕs reigns, for the other kings who reigned after Hezekiah have reigns
that cannot be adjusted to be shorter, at least not by more than a few months.
However,
upon close examination of the chronological records in Kings, one will find
that Pekah king of Israel finished his reign in AhazÕs 3rd or 4th
year and Hoshea who murdered Pekah and took the throne didnÕt come to power
until AhazÕs 12th year.
Since Hezekiah is recorded as coming to power in HosheaÕs 3rd
year, Hoshea likely came to power very late in AhazÕs 12th
year. Additionally Ahaz seems to
have come to power late in PekahÕs 17th year. Thus there appears to be some sort of
10 year difficulty in the biblical text.
Coincidently this the approximate number of years by which the Biblical
account and the Assyrian account differ.
Yet I have not found any satisfactory or even less than satisfactory way
to implement these years in such a way as to cause Hezekiah to begin his reign
in 715 instead of 725/6.
Length of SargonÕs rule
The
chronological difficulty between the bible and the Assyrian records is centered
around the length of the reign of Sargon II between Shalmaneser V who was in
power in HezekiahÕs 6th year and Sennacherib who was in power in
HezekiahÕs 14th year.
The bible only allows a gap of 8 or perhaps 9 years for Sargon II to rule
and actually makes no mention of him by name. Since according to the Assyrian records, SennacheribÕs
invasion was in his 3rd year (or later) then only 5 or 6 years (or
less) are allowed for Sargon II to rule. The commonly accepted Assyrian
chronology gives him about 16 years (ABD IV p744) One solution might be to
allow for a co-regency between Sennacherib and Sargon. Though Assyrian scholars may balk at
such an idea, it is no more far-fetched than the co-regency between Hezekiah
and Ahaz that some claim. Such a
scenario would place SennacheribÕs third year within the lifetime of his father
Sargon II and thus allow for it to also be in HezekiahÕs 14th
year. Thus Sennacherib would have
come to power about 716 as coregent and then became sole regent in 704 upon his
fatherÕs death. However direct
proof for such is lacking, just as it is for the claim of a co-regency between
Hezekiah and Ahaz. Perhaps Sennacherib is called king in retrospect though at
the time he was only crown prince at the head of the army. We may have an example of this at
Daniel 1:1 where Nebuchadnezzar is apparently called king even though at the
time he had not yet been crowned.
Additionally in Daniel 7:1 and 8:1 and also in the Babylonian records
Belshazzar is called king even though his father Nabonidus was the real
king. This was due to his father
placing him on the throne while he was away. The idea that Sennacherib was at the head of the army
invading Judah in HezekiahÕs 14th year (711) seems reasonable since
Sargon was apparently in the East dealing with Merodach-baladan in Babylon in
that year, and it is known that Sennacherib did indeed lead a separate army in
the north while Sargon was fighting at Babylon (Olmstead pp148,156).
Alternate dates for the Eclipse of Bur-Sagale
The
generally accepted date for the eclipse of Bur-Sagale, upon which the Assyrian
chronology is hung and thus considered absolute, is June 15 763 (ABD IV
p735). However other eclipses have
also been seen as being the one recorded here. The first is June 24, 791 and the second is June 13 809
(Jones p153). The June 24, 791
eclipse is worthy of consideration.
This would change the dates for the Assyrian chronology by 28 years
earlier and thus SennacheribÕs death would be not in 681 but rather in 709 BC. This fits attractively with the biblical
account which seems to have him dying shortly after his invasion which the
bible seems to place in 713.
The
obvious problem with this scheme is the Assyrian record placing SennacheribÕs
invasion in his 3rd year.
This would place his third year in 729, or before Hezekiah came to
power. Yet for HezekiahÕs first
few years, Shalmaneser V was in power in Assyria. Additionally time must be allowed for Sargon II to reign
between Shalmaneser V and Sennacherib.
Interestingly,
placing HezekiahÕs sickness in his 29th year instead of his 14th
year (see above) places the miracle of the shadow moving back on the sundial of
Ahaz at the very same time period that the Babylonian/Assyrian records first
mention a 364 ½ day solar year as opposed to their previous calculation
of 360 years which had been accepted by them for many centuries. Perhaps something cosmic did happen at
that time. Such may be a suitable
topic for future research, in a different field, but is beyond the scope of
this work. However it needs be
mentioned here since the movement of the shadow on the sundial seemed important
enough for both the Isaiah and Kings accounts to record and it is obvious that
such a thing would have huge impacts on chronological calculations based on
astronomical records such as the eclipse of Bur-Sagale which has been
considered to be the eclipse of June 15, 763 BC and upon which absolute dating
of the Assyrian chronology is arrived at.
Even so, while moving this astronomical event to an earlier date may
help reconcile earlier Assyrian chronology to that of the Bible, it does
nothing to help our problem, namely the length of Sargon 2ndÕs
reign.
Error in the Assyrian Chronology
Of
course the other and obvious possibility is that this particular Assyrian
record is misdated. That is to
say, that all of it pertains to 713 BC and has nothing at all to do with 701
BC. As established above, the 14th
year of Hezekiah cannot be moved from 713 to 701 BC. Therefore if the Biblical account is accurate and it and the
Assyrian account record the same event, the Assyrian account must be
misdated. I donÕt observe anything
in the Assyrian account itself that requires it to be dated to SennacheribÕs
third year as king, for he may be recounting his deeds from his third
campaign as general and crown prince in charge of the Assyrian army. This is what Jones suggests, calling
Sargon a Tartan and viceroy/co-regent (Jones p175). The attractiveness of this idea is bolstered by the epidemic
that occurred during SargonÕs reign in 707 BC that apparently caused widespread
death and may have been the cause for Sargon to remain in Assyria without
campaigning in 706 (Gallagher p267).
If Sennacherib indeed invaded Judah as co-regent in 713, then the
devastation of his army may have happened in the 707 epidemic, yet the nature
of the death of the 185,000 Assyrians in the Bible is described as miraculous
and as happening in one night (2nd Kings 19:35).
Conclusion
The
advantage to the Assyrian records is that they are for the most part dated to
the period which they record, as compared to the Biblical books for which the
earliest copies come from the 2nd century BC. However, years of copying do not
automatically equal errors, and the Assyrian records themselves are known to be
copies of earlier records (though sometimes only a few years earlier). The books of Isaiah and Kings give the
same chronological record for King Hezekiah. This would mean that errors or deliberate corrections would
have to happen in both books, or for errors to have happened in one book early
enough for the author of the second to copy the mistake in his original.
In
the Assyrian accounts we know that various monarchs deliberately claimed the
deeds of their predecessors for themselves (Sargon 2nd is a fine
example see Wiseman p162), while at the same time recording their defeats as
victories (Bright p302). The
biblical writerÕs willingness to record both victories and losses should
automatically grant them greater trust.
Of
the several works I have reviewed in researching this topic, most authors admit
that a definite solution can not be now known, though each has proposed his own
solution or solutions, which have been more or less noble endeavors ranging
from simply rejecting any reliance at all on the biblical text to more serious
study at trying to reconcile the two accounts.
At
present it seems the solution to the chronological problem can only be solved
by one of the following:
Since the biblical chronology for this period can be
understood from one complete text (Kings) and also separately can be checked
against another single complete text (Chronicles) and they in turn can be
checked against such books as Isaiah, Josephus, etcÉand they testify to
HezekiahÕs ascension before the deportation of Israel and to SennacheribÕs
invasion in HezekiahÕs 14th year, it seems this chronology is
reliable, thus a co-regency for Hezekiah/Ahaz is ruled out as well as is
claiming textual errors (25th instead of 14th year). The Assyrian records for Sargon 2nd
and Sennacherib are extensive but non-the less open to misinterpretation. The solution I currently prefer, though
not strongly, is that both accounts refer to SennacheribÕs deeds as crown
prince/general of the army.
For
now all we can hope is for some breakthrough, such as a new archaeological
discovery, to be made. Hopefully
that discovery will be in the form of a non-Assyrian text that will recount the
events for this period.
Bibliography
The numbers at the end of some of the entries refers
to the shelf location in the central library of the Hebrew University Mt.
Scopus Campus in Jerusalem, Israel.
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary
Doubleday, New York 1992
ANET Ancient Near Eastern
Texts – Relating to the Old Testament edited by James B. Pritchard,
Princeton University Press, New Jersey 1950
Anstey, Martin The Romance of Bible Chronology
Marshall Bros. London 1913 quoted in Jones
Bright, John A History of Israel -fourth edition Westminster
John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky 2000 (933.1 B 855 Rothberg Library)
CAH The Cambridge Ancient History – Volume
III Cambridge University Press, London 1954
Clarke, Adam ClarkeÕs Commentary OT contained
in Books for the Ages, AGES Software Albany, OR USA Version 2.0 copyright 1996,
1997
EB Encyclopedia Britannica William Benton,
Publisher, Chicago 1972
E.B.D.
EASTONS BIBLE DICTIONARY by M. G. Easton
from
Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Third
Edition published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. reproduced in Books
For The Ages AGES Software ¥ Albany, OR USA Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997
Fausset, A.R. (Jamieson, Robert / Fausset, A.R. /
Brown, David), Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids 6, Michigan 1967
Fritz, Volkmar An
Introduction to Biblical Archaeology - Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Series 172, JSOT Press, Sheffield 1996
Gallagher, William R. SennacheribÕs
Campaign to Judah – New Studies Brill, Boston 1999 (Studies in the
history and culture of the ancient Near East; vol 18) (Archaeology library 4600
GAL)
Hallo, William W. / Simpson, William Kelly The
Ancient Near East - A History Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. New York 1971
(935 H 192 Rothberg Library)
Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1969, reprinted 1977 Inter-Varsity Press
(BS 1140.2 H35 - 0164522)
Honor, Leo L. SennacheribÕs Invasion of Palestine-
A Critical Source Study, Columbia University Press, New York 1926
IBSE, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPEDIA , reproduced in Books For The Ages, AGES Software, Albany, OR
USA Version 1.0 © 1997
Jones, Floyd Nolen Chronology of the Old Testament
A Return to the Basics 14th edition 1999, KingsWord Press P.O.
Box 130220 The Woodlands, Texas
77393-0220
Josephus The
Antiquities of the Jews, and Against Apion contained in The Works
of Josephus: New Updated Edition,
Complete and Unabridged in One Volume translated by William Whiston,
Hendrickson Publishers 1987
JPS JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, The Traditional
Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation second edition, Jewish Publication
Society, Philadelphia, 1999. The
translators took a lot of liberty with this one.
KJV King James Version of the Holy Bible, also
called the Authorized Version.
Montgomery James A Ph.D., S.T.D. The International Critical
Commentary, T. & T.
CLARK, EDINBURGH, New York 1927/1964.
Olmstead, A. T. Western Asia in
the Days of Sargon of Assyria 722-705 B. C. Henry Holt and Company, New
York 1908 (Archaeology Library 4600-O)
Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Wycliffe
Bible Commentary Moody Press, Chicago 1966
Schaff, Philip The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series,
Volume reproduced in Books For The Ages, AGES Software,
Albany, OR USA Version 1.0 © 1997
Shanks, Hershel Ancient Israel -
From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple - Revised and Expanded Prentice
Hall, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington DC 1999 (933.1 S 528 Rothberg
Library)
Vaughn, Andrew G. Theology,
History, and Archaeology in the ChroniclerÕs Account of Hezekiah Scholars
Press, Atlanta Georgia 1999 (BS 1595.2 V38)
Wiseman, Donald John Peoples of
Old Testament Times Oxford University Press 1973 (DS 62.23 P47)
Yahuda, A.S. The Accuracy of the
Bible, E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc. USA 1935
Yamada, Shigeo The Assyrian King
List: the Editorial History and the Reliability of the Historical Data (unpublished
M.A. thesis, dept. of Assyriology, faculty of Humanities, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem), July 1992 (Archaeology library 4600 YAM)