TEXT [Commentary]

2. Assyria invades Judah (18:13-18)

13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign,[*] King Sennacherib of Assyria came to attack the fortified towns of Judah and conquered them. 14 King Hezekiah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: “I have done wrong. I will pay whatever tribute money you demand if you will only withdraw.” The king of Assyria then demanded a settlement of more than eleven tons of silver and one ton of gold.[*] 15 To gather this amount, King Hezekiah used all the silver stored in the Temple of the LORD and in the palace treasury. 16 Hezekiah even stripped the gold from the doors of the LORD’s Temple and from the doorposts he had overlaid with gold, and he gave it all to the Assyrian king.

17 Nevertheless, the king of Assyria sent his commander in chief, his field commander, and his chief of staff[*] from Lachish with a huge army to confront King Hezekiah in Jerusalem. The Assyrians took up a position beside the aqueduct that feeds water into the upper pool, near the road leading to the field where cloth is washed.[*] 18 They summoned King Hezekiah, but the king sent these officials to meet with them: Eliakim son of Hilkiah, the palace administrator; Shebna the court secretary; and Joah son of Asaph, the royal historian.

NOTES

18:13 fourteenth year. The NLT mg is correct to connect Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah to 701 BC, but as the previous commentary discusses at some length, this may well not have corresponded historically with Hezekiah’s 14th year of reign (which might itself have been a secondary calculation; cf. the notes on 14:2 and 20:6 for the remarkable “25/29/15” set of chronological parallels with Amaziah).

King Sennacherib of Assyria. Successor of Sargon II (see the note on 17:5), he was probably Sargon’s son (see Younger 2009b:167). Sargon’s ignominious death on the battlefield in 705 BC probably was an embarrassment to Sennacherib (cf. Younger 2009a:111); in any case, it helped lead to significant revolts throughout the vast Assyrian kingdom. After crushing rebellion in the south in 704–702, Sennacherib campaigned in the west (his so-called “third campaign”), fighting against Phoenicia and then Judah. He eventually captured Lachish (see the first note on 18:14), as well as some 46 Judahite cities in all, finally placing Jerusalem itself under siege, thus shutting up Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage” (as described in the Rassam Prism Inscription; cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:337-339). Of course, Sennacherib was unsuccessful in his attempt to capture Jerusalem, but he did extract heavy tribute from Hezekiah (cf. the notes on 18:14, 16).

18:14 Lachish. See the second note on 14:19 concerning this important city in the Shephelah (for a recent discussion of the extensive archaeological remains of Level III, which are almost certainly to be connected with Sennacherib’s destruction of the city in 701 BC, see Ussishkin 2008:559-561). Assyrian reliefs from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh illustrate strikingly his capture of this city, as well as the subsequent deportation of its inhabitants (ANEP, pictures 371-374).

more than eleven tons of silver and one ton of gold. As the NLT mg indicates, this is more literally 300 talents of silver—an immense amount—and 30 talents of gold—also immense. It is of no little interest that Sennacherib’s own annals cite “30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver” (plus many other objects) as being received from Hezekiah as tribute (see Cogan and Tadmor [1988:229, 338-339], who suggest that the higher amount of silver in the Assyrian annals totals may include the precious metals stripped from the Temple doors and doorposts). (For the probable weight of the talent in modern terms [about 75 lb., or 35 kg], see the second note on 1 Kgs 9:14; cf. the recent article by John Holladay [2009:211]).

18:16 gold. This word is used twice in this verse in the NLT (cf. NIV, NRSV), but there is no explicit counterpart in the MT (which simply reads that Hezekiah had stripped the doors and the doorposts, which he had previously plated), whence the suggestion mentioned in the previous note that (unspecified) precious metals (presumably silver) stripped from the Temple doors and doorposts may have been included in the higher Assyrian totals for tribute received from Hezekiah. (Both the doors and doorposts of the Temple had, however, indeed been plated with gold back in the days of Solomon; see 1 Kgs 6:31-35.)

gave it all. In a way, King Hezekiah was no better than his predecessors, including his “evil” father, King Ahaz (see the note on 16:8). What a humiliating image we have here of Hezekiah scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, to pay off the Assyrians! (The omission of 18:14-16 in the Isaiah parallel will be discussed in the commentary.)

18:17 Nevertheless. The Hebrew simply reads, “and the king of Assyria sent . . .” (wayyishlakh [TH7971, ZH8938] melek ’ashur), but the NLT translation effectively conveys the idea that we are probably beginning a new section of narrative here (“Account B”; see the commentary for details).

commander in chief . . . field commander . . . chief of staff. Heb., tartan [TH8661, ZH9580] . . . rab-saris [TH7227B/5631, ZH8042/6247] . . . rab-shaqeh [TH7262, ZH8072], three titles now familiar to us from their Akkadian parallels (see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:229-230 for details). The third refers to the main spokesperson here, the “chief of staff” (or more precisely, the “chief butler,” often transliterated “Rabshakeh”), who was a high court official whose duties did not normally include military affairs, but since Sennacherib himself was participating in this particular campaign, he naturally accompanied him into the field. The rab-shaqeh may have himself been an Israelite of noble birth previously exiled to Assyria; in any case, his fluency in the Judahite dialect (cf. 18:26) probably qualified him to be the chief spokesperson for the Assyrians over against his immediate military superiors (cf. the references found in the NLT mg note on this verse concerning how often he is referred to, in contrast to the other Assyrian officials).

upper pool. This location is also mentioned in nearly identical terms in Isa 7:3 in connection with King Ahaz’s inspection of the Jerusalem defenses in the days of Tiglath-pileser. The “aqueduct” (te‘alah [TH8585, ZH9498]) is not to be confused with Hezekiah’s famous tunnel, which is only mentioned in passing in 20:20 as bringing water “into the city” from the Gihon Spring (the main water source for Jerusalem) down to the pool of Siloam (presumably the “lower” pool). The location of the “upper” pool, however, remains uncertain. Wiseman (1993:276) plausibly suggests it was near the Gihon Spring itself, while Cogan and Tadmor (1988:230) cite Mazar’s identification with the location of the “camp of the Assyrians” outside the city walls to the northwest (cf. Ussishkin 1979:137-142; Hobbs 1985:260-262).

to the field where cloth is washed. Heb., sedeh kobes [TH3526, ZH3891], “field of washing” or “field of bleaching” (cf. NLT mg). Koehler and Baumgartner (HALOT 459) translate here, “to full, clean cloths by treading, kneading, and beating them,” whence the traditional rendering of “fuller’s field”; but they also note the suggestion that this field was where fulled cloths were spread out “in order to dry and bleach.”

18:18 Eliakim . . . Shebna . . . Joah. Thus, three Judahite high court officials counterbalance the three members of the Assyrian delegation mentioned in the previous verse. Eliakim was the “royal steward” or “palace administrator” (‘al habbayith [TH1004, ZH1074], lit., “over the palace/house”; cf. the first note on 1 Kgs 4:6). Shebna was the “scribe” or “court secretary” (soper [TH5608A, ZH6221])—in Isa 22:15 he had been termed both the “steward” (soken [TH5532B, ZH6125]; cf. Oswalt 1986:418 for this suggested translation) and the “palace administrator” (‘al habbayith), but Isaiah prophesied that he would soon be demoted and replaced by Eliakim [Isa 22:20], a prediction which has seemingly taken place, at least partially, here in 2 Kings). Finally, Joah was listed as the “state recorder” or “royal historian” (mazkir [TH2142C, ZH4654]), but he is otherwise unknown.

COMMENTARY [Text]

We have just read a remarkably “terse, factual account” (18:13-16; so Cogan and Tadmor 1988:240-241) concerning Hezekiah’s actions during the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BC. Commentators have come to label this “Account A,” describing it as an annalistic or archival record utterly devoid of theological reflection (cf. the commentary on 16:1-20 for similar, nonjudgmental records cited concerning King Ahaz). But starting with 18:17, another account begins, usually labeled “Account B”: a lengthy and discursive narrative, heavily theological throughout, and according to some, describing an entirely different campaign (cf. the references cited in the previous commentary section for details). Although once championed by no less a figure than W. F. Albright, few today would be open to such a radical historical reconstruction. But that then leaves us in a quandary: Can “Account B” (traditionally delineated as 18:17–19:37, with the possibility that all or part of the last two verses properly belong to “Account A”) actually be an account of the same campaign so tersely presented in Account A and represent such an embarrassing set of events for King Hezekiah?

Complicating matters even further, scholars such as Childs (1967:73-103; cf. Barnes 1991:77-79) generally subdivide Account B into two subsections: B1 (18:17–19:9a, 36-37) and B2 (19:9b-35). Both subsections are largely parallel, with B1 containing the speeches of the Rabshakeh (NLT, “chief of staff”; see the second note on 18:17 for details concerning this title), the first response of King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah, and the latter’s confident prediction that Sennacherib would hear a rumor and return to his own land where he would fall by the sword; and B2 containing another speech (and/or letter) from unnamed Assyrian messengers, another response from Hezekiah and from Isaiah, and a prediction that Yahweh himself would defend his city, Jerusalem. Thus, Account B1 concludes with Sennacherib’s abrupt departure home to Nineveh after receiving word that Tirhakah (later a very famous pharaoh [cf. the note on 19:9] but here possibly an Egyptian royal commander of the army) was on the march against him, and then Sennacherib’s assassination by his own sons; while Account B2 ends with Yahweh’s miraculous slaying of some 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. Childs characterizes B1 as a unified narrative largely based upon ancient historical tradition (cf. Barnes 1991:108-109), but B2 as more legendary, more heavily theological (e.g., the role of Hezekiah as pious king), and containing a lengthy prophetic interpolation (19:21b-31), which is more akin to oracles found in the book of Isaiah. Thus, a complicated analysis of what seems to be a relatively straightforward (if repetitive) narrative account.

Childs’s analysis has won many followers (I think there is a lot to be said for it, myself); but its subtlety is mostly beyond the scope of the present commentary, which mainly looks at the text in its final form. And not all have followed his source-critical approach anyway. Sweeney (2007:411-412), for one, largely discounts the validity of such an analysis: “The report of successive delegations does not mark independent narratives, but points instead to the development of dramatic tension in the midst of a confrontation between the two groups, portrayed at the surface level by the numerically balanced groups of three Assyrian and three Israelite officers.” Childs, however, in his recent Isaiah commentary (2001:271-272), gives an effective response: “I do not agree . . . that because of the possibility of rendering the text as a coherent literary composition, the synchronic reading undercuts the case for seeing an earlier, diachronic diversity. Without adequate recognition of a history of development the danger can be acute of flattening the tensions and subtle nuances that are clearly present.” Suffice it to say that, as we have found already throughout the books of 1–2 Kings, annalistic material has been combined with more heavily theological discourses, and that definitely appears to be the case here. It will be our task to tease out these historical and theological messages as a whole, leaving behind diachronic analyses (i.e., those reflecting different editorial eras and times), which are in any case largely hypothetical in nature. But simply to suggest that we have a unified, straightforward narrative here about Hezekiah, Isaiah, the Rabshakeh, and the arrogant Assyrian King Sennacherib is to miss much of the richness of the traditions which comprise most of chapters 18 and 19 of the book of 2 Kings.

Commentators have, as we have just seen, taken seriously the lengthy parallels between these chapters of 2 Kings and Isaiah 36–37 (actually the parallels extend through 2 Kgs 20 and Isa 39), and they have naturally debated which was the more likely original source, Kings or Isaiah? Most these days think Kings was used by Isaiah (e.g., Cogan and Tadmor 1988:257), with the “Poem of Praise of Hezekiah” (Isa 38:9-20) added to the account “at a late stage in its development” (Williamson 1996:47-52). But proponents of Isaiah’s primacy have not been found entirely lacking (cf. the nuanced discussion in Blenkinsopp 2000:458-461).

In such cases, each parallel text must be weighed on its own, and overarching hypotheses resisted in the case of individual variations. One such variation should be cited to make the point: the notable absence of 18:14-16 in the otherwise closely parallel account about King Hezekiah found in Isaiah 36. As we have seen, these three verses in Kings present a very negative image of Hezekiah scurrying around trying to raise the immense tribute Sennacherib demanded as his price for withdrawing from the land and leaving Hezekiah on the throne. Naturally, commentators are quick to assume that the Isaiah editor purposely omitted these verses so as not to present Hezekiah in such a negative light—a suggestion which certainly appears plausible enough at first sight. But Childs (1967:69-70) proposed a simpler text-critical solution: We find here a case of haplography in which where a scribe’s eye skipped from the verb “and he sent” (wayyishlakh [TH7971, ZH8938]) at the beginning of 18:14 to the identical verb at the beginning of 18:17, resulting in his omission of 18:14-16 in the parallel Isaiah text. I cite this example merely to show how mechanical textual corruption may be the underlying cause of what might otherwise seem to be tendentious editing of the otherwise parallel texts. In sum: We may never know for sure why something is left out—it is our job rather to focus upon what is not left out, and why!