Sor ee oe etn thetn hate teatnale taal tothe atin Pte Dantes gi a of eee ES ett an Dag ne Toast Sn te aPe oer wt ~ ona 3 OO, oy te ee roe = ME . win earn een ww BSI\9T i 6. HTT ‘ae ae eA ¢ Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/sennacheribsinva0Ohono_0 : ita ae , een | a i) GA ha. j of A r 4 f ; s \ f * » ‘ Ss + | Tie SENNACHERIB’S INVASION OF PALESTINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY No. 12 SEN NACHERIB’S INVASION OF PALESTINE MAC riicalsoouUrce otud y by LEO, Gy HONOR, Ph.D. New York COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1926 CopyrRiGHT, 1926 By LEO L. HONOR Printed from type. Published June, 1926 TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER NOTE The dissertation of Mr. Leo L. Honor was begun under the super- vision of my late colleague Dr. Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh. It deals with a subject that has always been of interest to students of the Biblical narrative, especially since the re-discovery of Baby- lonia and Assyria. Mr. Honor has gone with much care to the sources of the subject with the end in view of finding out their real value and of testing the relation that these sources bear one to the other. He has worked with much caution and has drawn conclusions with much prudence. I commend his work to all those who are interested in this period of history. RicHARD GOTTHEIL April 28, 1926. Vil ; a if , iy rd TABLE OF CONTENTS. CuaptTer I. Part I—The Assyrian Sources . The Annals of Sennacherib B. The Display Inscriptions C. Inscriptions Later Than the Taylor Prism D. A Clay Impression of a Royal Seal . CuapTer I. Part Ii—Critical Analysis of the Account of Sennacherib’s Campaign Found in the Assyrian Annals Notes To CHAPTER | CuapTerR I]—The Biblical Account of Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine Aye Lik MVUT SAX TX. 37 \. B. II Chronicles XXXII 1-23 Notes To CHaptTer II CuHapTer II1I—The Prophecies of Isaiah A. Ch. XXVIII-XXXIII B. Anti-Assyrian Prophecies C. Miscellaneous Prophecies Notes To CuHaptTer III Bibliography . Page 11 12 13 26 116 ABBREVIATIONS. _K. A. T. —Jirku, Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. M. Catalogue —Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum, v. I-V and Supplement. ieee 8 —Cambridge Ancient History. B ey > ; —The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Coileges. — ne, I. B. I.—Cheyne, T. K., Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. iS. —Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Ceesis —Schrader, E. Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa- ment. at —Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British B h h Museum. 3, —Hastings, J. Dictionary of the Bible. M. G. Z. —Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift. A. —Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. Hk, —Gottinger Handcommentar zum Alten Testament. as —Marti, K. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa- ment. —The International Critical Commentary. —Journal Asiatique. S. —Journal American Oriental Society. iS BOGUS” CeAOOme: a —Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. —Journal Royal Asiatic Society. an bs —Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Historischen Inhalts. —Zimmern, H. and Winckler, H. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. —Schrader, E. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Vay —Kittel, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 5th ed. a —Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. —Nowacks Handkommentar. —Orientalische Literaturzeitung. —Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement. —Records of the Past. ry —Society of Biblical Archaeology—Proceedings. Ais bake cone Books of the Old Testament. (Polychrome Edi- tion. T. —Stade, B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. —Vorderasiatische Abteiliung, Berlin Museum. M. —Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft Mitteilungen. : —The Westminster Commentaries. . D. O. G—Wissenschaftliche Ver6ffentlichungen der Deutscher Orient Gesellschaft. —Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie. . T. W —Zeitschrift fuer die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Dw prt Pe ara “ed ener oY Rites eee sd chem Ty. ~ Sass yunvOZ NN FOREWORD. The immature student of Biblical History is very often unable to find his bearings, because each book he picks up has a different account of the same events. As he begins to understand better the nature of the process whereby man is learning more and more about the remote past, he learns that new material which sheds light on the past is being continuously unearthed, and that as a result of this process each historian in retelling the old story must recast it in the light of new evidence. He appreciates the advantage that the younger historians who have access to material that was not previously available have over their predecessors, and he becomes increasingly suspicious of the older works. Eventually, he is apt to depend exclusively on the most recent works. It does not occur to him to investigate whether there were any new data discovered in the interval that elapsed since a previous book was written, which might account for the divergences in the various accounts. He takes that for granted, and consequently the more recent book is always accepted as the more authentic. In order that the immature student may be emancipated from this unscientific attitude, it is important for him to realize that our reconstruction of past events is often based on scanty evidence. When he learns to appreciate that scholars have to resort to hypo- theses to fill in lacunae or to reconcile differences and contradiction: in the sources, he will begin to understand that divergences are due, not always to differences in the sources that are available, but frequently to differences in the construction put on the same sources. There will then come a recognition of the part played by analysis, imagination and intuition in piecing together the fragmentary evi- dence in order to construct a complete whole. With that recognition there is bound to come a changed attitude on the part of the student. When he realizes that whenever differ- ences in the accounts are due to differences in interpretation of the sources or to differences in the assumptions that are made as to what probably happened, there will be no reason for him to assume that the older works are less reliable than the new. He may even perceive that the intuition of an older scholar may be more pene- trating than that of a younger. He will understand, too, that it is XI only when divergences between the older and more recent accounts are due to differences in the sources available at the times the two books were written that the older theories may be discarded in favor of the new. He will appreciate the necessity of investigating the reasons for all divergences that he notes. With that appreciation comes a scientific attitude. A detailed study of the problems involved in reconstructing the account of one Biblical event; an analysis of the difficulties which the available sources present’ and of the various hypotheses which have been devised to meet these difficulties, will serve, it is hoped, as an introduction to the study of Biblical Historiography, and will help the student to appreciate the difficulty in ascertaining definitely which of the many theories in the reconstruction referred to is more likely to be correct. I have chosen Sennacherib’s Campaign in Palestine as the topic for a study of this nature because there has been practically no new material found, of late, which throws light on Sennacherib’s invasion of Palestine. Consequently, all the differences in the reconstruction of the story of that event must be attributed to dif- ferences in interpretation, and the analysis of the bases for these differences will help to illustrate the different schools of thought engaged in the reconstruction of the Biblical story. The Assyrian version of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine is told in considerable detail on a number of cuneiform inscriptions, which are usually referred to as “Sennacherib’s Annals.” It is also contained in the inscriptions which were recorded on the bodies of the bulls that had been placed at the entrance to Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh. These inscriptions correspond to one another so closely, that it is evident that they represent different editions of the same account. The Hebrew version of Sennacherib’s campaign or campaigns is given in II Kings and Isaiah, and in an abridged form in II Chronicles. We also possess in one of Herodotus’ narra- tives what is believed to be an Egyptian version of the same campaign. The story of this campaign is also told by Josephus. Josephus’ account is evidently a free rendering of the Biblical narrative. Josephus tries to smoothen out some of the difficulties presented by the Biblical text; moreover, he incorporates into his account elements taken from Herodotus. XII In addition to the accounts of Sennacherib’s campaign enumerated above, we have the following sources from which the story of Sennacherib’s campaign or campaigns is to be gleaned: a small cuneiform fragment indicating that Sennacherib waged a campaign in Arabia during the latter part of his reign; an abbreviated account of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine on one of Sennacherib’s display inscriptions; a clay impression of the seal of Shabaka, king of Ethiopia, found in Nineveh; and the contemporary allusions in the prophecies of Isaiah which were delivered during the crisis in Judah, caused by Sennacherib’s invasion or invasions of Palestine. In this source material are found an array of common elements, which to all intent may be accepted as facts, and a mass of dis- crepancies and contradictions; and there is evident a series of lacunae. voids which are to be made substantial only by theorizing, which at best is dangerous and beset with pitfalls. And so scholars who have attempted to reconstruct the story have produced these theories, or hypotheses: I. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. The invasion was successful from beginning to end. Il. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. During the first part of the campaign he was successful, but during the latter part his army was visited by a plague, and as a result he was compelled to return to Assyria with the remnant of his army, with- out accomplishing his purpose. II. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. He was successful in repressing the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of disquieting rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt and Ethiopia, or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his campaign abruptly. Consequently Sennacherib allowed Hezekiah to buy his security through the payment of tribute. IV. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The first campaign was successful from beginning to end. The second was a complete failure. V. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The first was successful. The second ended abruptly, either because of a rumor of a powerful army led by Tirhakah, or of unsettled condi- tions in Assyria or Babylonia. VI. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. one XIII in 701. and the other during the latter part of Sennacherib’s reign. During the first campaign Sennacherib was successful in repressing the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of disquieting rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt and Ethiopia or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his campaign abruptly. Consequently, in spite of the fact that Hezekiah was the leading spirit of the revolt, Sennacherib allowed him to buy his security through the payment of tribute. The second campaign was a complete failure. His army was visited by a plague and as a result, he was compelled to return to Assyria with the remnants of his army without accomplishing his purpose. These are not the story; they are reconstructions, hypotheses, theories; and in the succeeding chapters, the writer seeks to prove conclusively that none of the hypotheses is so strongly substantiated by the facts available in the sources, that it may claim greater credence than the others. Since the different conclusions which different writers have reached are not due to differences in the sources employed by them, but to different constructions put upon them, the writer proposes to make an analysis of these sources. He believes that such an analysis will indicate the impossibility, in our present state of knowledge, of coming to any definite conclusions in regards to the reconstruction of the events we are considering, and that all our conclusions must remain hypothetical in character until some new evidence will come to light, which will settle some moot questions once for all. _ is a negative effort of this kind fruitless? Not if it is a positive value to know that there is no way of escaping the tangle into which criticism of the available sources brings us without resorting to assumptions and backing them up by further assumptions. Nor, if it is a definite gain to learn that all possible theories of reconstruc- tion contain inherent weaknesses, and that that which determines for any given writer which hypothesis to accept is his subjective bias, rather than any definite basis for establishing any given view as a more faithful representation of what actually happened. This study will be justified if the analyses made in this study will bring an immature student to a better understanding of the problems underlying the reconstruction of Biblical History; to an appreciation of the various approaches to the questions that are possible and the XIV subjective element in writing history—if they will help him to recognize that in the absence of definite evidence, the intuitions of the older historians may approximate the truth as closely as those of their successors—if they will instill in him a sense of caution, so that he shall not accept any hypothesis too readily. I take pleasure in expressing my indebtedness to the late Prof. Frederick A. Vanderburgh for having stimulated my interest in cuneiform inscriptions. To Prof. Richard H. Gottheil I wish to express my sincerest thanks for the helpful and inspiring guidance which I have had the privilege of enjoying for almost ten years. I also wish to thank Mr. Jacob Golub and Mr. Solomon Bluhm for having read the proof sheets and for having given me the benefit of their constructive criticism; and in particular, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to my brother-in-law, Harry M. Jaffe, for his ever-ready assistance and helpful suggestions. Leo L. Honor. Woe oldyal0;, 1926. XV uy 7 NE ea o at B hAeny Whh ee, eae 1 By he ny ve ¥ ae bi iF 5% > a A'S a pare ss Tr caee ~ ri ca iy fadle ds. “¥ “oD Bs 2 - Ory } Lene pas ‘ % a% id oe v ‘2 yal \ Sabo ‘ae ¥ i : oan ty Dee ti iy ‘bt ae i: ee ae ae : ; i - - T ‘ ) cA ts 7 Pg SRC RAB se pecs tae ‘ -) iv rs i, 0 i s * ; ‘ Ae au Dect a4) bale, ti ALS ! ou, OF cara tm , y : Ma ie Wei + py " ne a 2 f y \ Pp \ a 7 je a } . baa i iy y “3 ae ‘ : Mi pane ry qi ¥ al 4 4 | ] ¥ : ) ? 4 y %¢ . ich ' i ; | . : ob q ! ' a5 rn 4 T 8) sere ‘ ; ) i He Re \ ih r t i u 7 ea, K: are , Baa ain: f : 1 yy ee a MURA. : r : ' Ae ae ui tif tay ‘ Waa i ri ‘8 ee i ri 4 ' i ‘ ay, et Bh j : fae? ; : a‘. TEAS , i ower , 7 t d f i : “a 1 ‘ 4 ’ . ne Boar t 7 3 mi 1 ae : & i ; i. Pe Gs \ ] ‘ Li <> ph nh td x oat A / { na a i i nite vin ‘ J ¥ Lf : : ‘i ¢ At, Gti nie Te ate te ma : iy ha me tae Niet j ait ak: i vu) fi { ty has "f ee } uk . i , 4 } ere Baie aA iit ree an Ve : 1 iN y j1-y 7 < # , if ; 4 7 Pialed Lf i] ART i “ é rou i mek Od ate hit vA z a] L ’ s (hy! bs i H1t : ‘rary iv; we j é n pia a = a A 7 uh: 5 > : { u Le ay 144 a ™ 34 ; | ta re f ai : : ii a 4 ; f ie - r \ i. aq ye ; ’ + A i a . Tighe hii i }, y he i My , A Je td f iN nee, ih ' yuh AUP J j The Ar da. i a Vy 4 , t. Ute | ad Bi Py ial bs k : Ne a ‘ ia ru its wh : ' 4 : j yy ¥ MY LR ee x } 1 er ead Aes ' "| \ \ Lies 7 aH i AY. ; . r ne ie Ao gues i < h bd Thea ; 21) P w 7 co Ea be) uy, - - 5 | we i ? { } ., 7 i io a id A ; = an a ith, seis ; Z ; iy a 7 Fihok fi ‘ 42 a an iear) aLFs Pe ae iP Z y +f pul Is + Ay) . i in mind that to assume that Isaiah was the author of a history of Hezekiah’s reign does not warrant us in the further assumption that this history constitutes Chapters XXXVI-XXXIX of our present book of Isaiah. In our present Look of Isaiah, there is no trace of Uzziah’s reign which is ascribed to him, and, therefore, if the reference is accurate, it must refer to a non-extant document. Is ‘it not conceivable that the reference in Chronicles to a history of Hezekiah is not to our present book, but also to this non- extant document, of which the history of Uzziah was also a part? The supposition might be reversed, however. It is also conceivable, although not probable, that the history of Uzziah referred to by the Chronicler might have at one time belonged to the book of Isaiah. It might be assumed that in Isaiah’s ‘‘History of Uzziah” there was nothing about himself, and therefore an editor of the book of Isaiah, who was later than the chronicler, considered these chapters out of place in a took of Isaiah’s prophecies and removed them. Such a procedure would have been very natural, particularly if at that time it was no longer known that the history was written by Isaiah. In accordance with this assumption ch. XXXVI-XXXIX were allowed ta remain, not because they were written by Isaiah, but because of the prominent part played by Isaiah in the events described. Such a defence of Isaiah’s authorship, comes very close to the theories advocated by those who deny the Isianic authorship, and who assume that their presence in the book of Isaiah is due to the desire of the editor of the book of Isaiah to give credit to Isaiah for his achievemrents during the national crisis. %3However, it is possible to argue that even in accordance with the theory that there were intermediate rescensions, there is no reason to suspect that our present text is radically different from the original source. The inclusion of vv.14-16 seems to indicate that the editors did not take very much liberty witn their sources, but that they tended to incorporate whatever sources came to their disposal in almost the identical form in which they found them. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the two extant rescensions differ from one another very little. MChs. Vib and mia Ch XXX UR: %Cf. Meinhold, Die Jesajaerzahlungen pp. 49ff. 86In accordance with this view, II K XIX 9b ff. must be regarded as describing Sad which happened immediately after the events described in [1 K XVIII 17— 87Those who believe that Kings and Isaiah were derived independently, cannot advocate the theory that they were derived from two independent sources. _ If they favor the view that II K XVIII 17-XIX 87 (corresponding chapters in Isaiah) is a composite, they must assume that the source from which Kings and Isaiah were derived was already composite. In which case, the probability is in favor of this document being a rather late document. 88The analysis given here represents a modification of that made by Stade (Anmerkungen zu II K XV-XX) Z.A.W. v.6 (1886) pp. 172ff. Stade bases his contention that II K XVIII 17-XIX 37 is not a unity on three 74, Notes to Chapter II arguments. (1) There are three prophecies attributed to Isaiah (XIX 7, 28b, 33) and there is no reference in the latter prophecies that a previous prophecy had been given. (2) The first prophecy XIX 7 is the most severe—there is no threat to Sennacherib in the others. It does not seem natural that when reiterating a prophecy, the prophet would omit an important threat. (38) That XIX 9a seems to be a fitting finish to the story begun in II] K XVIII 13 and XVIII 17 (vv.8 and 9a seem to be a ae pa of the prophecy in v.7); whereas XIX 9bff. is an unnatural sequence to XIX Qa. In addition to separating II K XVIII 17-XIXa from XIXb-37, Stade believes that It EK eer 21-31 should be excluded from II K XIX 9b-37. For his arguments see pp. 47ff, 8*TT K XIX 14. ‘Some scholars believe that there is a contradiction between v.14 and v.10. It can not be inferred from v.10 that the message of Sennacherib was oral. Early Babylonian letters usually start with formula ‘‘To A say ‘Thus sayeth B.’ ” This form of salutation is very frequent in the Hammurabbi and the Amarna Periods. [It does not seem to have been used much by the Sargonid Kings. It is found, however, in a letter of Ashurbanipal H 926. (See J.A.O.S. v.43 pp. 26-40.) This form of salutation can be explained in various ways. It may have originated from che custom of supplementing the written message with an oral one (so that the oressage could be properly delivered even if the written one were lost), or else it may have arisen out of the custom of having letters read by professional readers. (For this note I am indebted to Dr. E. G. H. Kraeling.) OTT K XVIII 17, (I XXXVI 2). Some scholars, who do not believe that these verses refer to the blockade mentioned in the Assyrian Annals, have interpreted the words 725 5°*m3 as referring toa military escort rather than to a large army. The text does not allow such an interpretation, and such a conclusion can only be reached by deliberately tampering with the text. Some scholars seem to find it easier to make the text accommodate itself to the theory, than to try to accommodate a. theory, to) the) text. 41In II K XIX 7, Isaiah predicts that Sennacherib will return to his own land because of a rumor that he will hear, and that there he will die an unnatural death. In II K XIX 382 Isaiah predicts that God will protect Jerusalem, and as a result, Jerusalem will be immune. _*If the second account begins with 9a, then the end of the first account is missing. aIf vv.36 and 37 are a part of the second account, then in accordance with the first account, Isaiah’s prophecy remains unfulfilled. 44Stade (1.c.) suggests a very tempting emendation, viz., the inclusion of the word S18" after the word 1} (v.9). It is interesting to note that the word - au} is lacking in the Isianic rescension. Shall we assume that in both rescensions, the phrase }$985 3" was originally present—that when the two accounts were joined together, the Isianic editor tried to harmonize them by omitting the entire phrase, whereas the editor of Kings was not quite so logical and therefore retained the word {YIN There can be no doubt that the word 32} in the text of Kings makes the text difficult. To accept Stade’s emendation makes it necessary to accept his hypothesis that II K XVIII 17-XIX 9a represents a complete account. 45. One of the chief difficulties with this division is the word Sv} in the Kings rescension, Those who wish to divide the two accounts at the end of v.8 must assume that the editor of Kings added the word 3) in a crude attempt to make the second account appear as a natural sequel to the first. Accordingly, those scholars who believe that K was derived from I, escape the necessity of accounting for the absence of the word 27} in the Isianic rescension. Those _ scholars, who believe that I was derived from K, must assume that the editor of Isaiah, while copying the Kings composite, sensed an incongruity in the word 2" and substituted the word ypu) ; 46Sennacherib may have advanced as far as Pelusium (Herodotus II 141). If we accept Herodotus’ statement that he got as far as Pelusium, we must also accept the subsequent statement that he was checked there. 47Kuenen, for example, maintains that II K XIX 21-81 is a genuine Isianic oracle, despite the fact that he admits that v.25 is suspicious. (He, too, thinks that v.25 suggests II Isaiah.) Kuenen bases his view on fhe fact thay the prophecy is conerete and that the language of this section resembles very closely the language of Esha se teii ai however, questions the authenticity of vv.32-34 on account of the phras S2yY 333 y¥n9) This phrase is not Isianic; it is a very enaracteristic phrase of oh Meir of Kings—I K XI 12, 13, 32, 34; XV Fel TKR EV LED 19s xe ee aes view that II K XIX 21-28 is Isianic is shared by Sellin (Einleitung in das Alte Testa- ment.) Sellin refers to it as a “‘Spottlied’” on the King of Assyria. (Sellin admits that vv.25-27 might not be Isianic but a late addition.) Driver (L.O.T. 1920, p. 227) also accepts LT XIX 21-31 as Isianic. He believes that “the prophecy bears unmis- takable marks of Isaiah’s hand, but that the surrounding narrative is the work of a later writer.” 4821a is not a part of the poem. 49There is no reference to this fact in A. It is possible that such a fact may have been recorded in the Hebrew Annals, but that the compiler of the Book of Kings did not include it when making his excerpt. 50In the discussion of Is. XVII 12-14, I have idnicated the possibility of such \ Notes to Chapter II 75 a legend evolving without a basis in fact, as a result of naive assumption that all of {[saiah’s predictions must have been realized. te tt! 2d HSE Sl YIDIDRITT BYY SISA TWN 13N _ 583If we regard vv.36 and 37 as a part of B, then the correctness of the informa- tion contained in v.37 would be another indication that B was based on authentic sources. Not all scholars are ready to concede that the details given in v.37 concerning the murder of Sennacherib are accurate. It will be helpful to analyse this verse and to discuss each element separately. (a) The reference to ‘‘the temple of Nishroch his god’ is not clear—but that Sennacherib was murdered while worshipping in a temple is indicated by a reference to the murder of his grandfather in an inscription of Ashurbanipal (Rassam Cylinder Col. IV 7O0ff. translated K, B. II 192). Jirku (A. K. p. 182) suggests that 3703 probably represents a mutilated form of a name of a Babylonian deity. Some scholars have tried to identify 703 with Marduk, but the identification is rather far-fetched. (Nor have the attempts to identify the name with that of an Assyrian deity been more successful. For further discussion of this question see J. Offord—The Assassination of Sennacherib, P.E.F. 1918, pp. 88-90; Ungnad. Der Ort der Ermorderung, Z.A. v.XXXV; Adler—On the death of Sennacherib, A.O.S.J. v. XIII, 1889.) (b) In accordance with v.37, Sennacherib was murdered by two sons. In accordance with the Babylonian Chronicle (Col. III 1.84) he was killed by only one son. A statement in an inscription of Nabonidus (Nabonidus Stele 1.39, see M.V.A.G., 1896 p. 25) and a quotation from Polyhistor (which is in turn a quotation from Berossus) by Eusebius (Eusebi Chronicorum, Liber I, ed. Schoene, Berlin 1875, I 27) correspond with the Babylonian Chronicle. On the other hand, that Sennacherib was murdered by more than one son is con- firmed by a reference in an inscription of Essarhaddon to his brothers (he uses the plural consistently throughout his account) who murdered his father (cf. Albright, J.A.O.S. v.XXXV pp. 391 ff., Meissner O.Z. 1914, col. 344-346). (c) There is no reference anywhere to sons of Sennacherib who bear the names of Adramelech and Sharezer (there have been a number of attempts to identify these names with the names of the known sons of Sennacherib, but they have not been successful. Cf.Hall, A.H.N.E. p. 493). The limnru corresponding to 682 was named after Nabusharusur (was he one of the conspirators who killed Sennacherib, the Sharezer of the Old Testament?) ye ow is evidently a Hebraization of an Assyrian (cr Babylonian) name. Can we assume that Ardumuzanus, the name of Sennacherib’s murderer given by Polyhistor, is a Greek corruption of the same name? It is easier to identify Adramelech with Adramelus, who, in accordance with Eusebius’ quotation of Abydenus, was the murderer of his father Nergal. (!) (It is now known that the quotation from Abydemus can be traced to Polyhistor’s quotations from Berossus. Cf.Schnabel- Berossus pp. 167ff.) (d) There is no confirmation in the Assyrian sources of the statement that the murderers fled to Ararat (Urartu?), but Essarhaddon, in his description of his efforts to avenge his father’s death (l.c.) states that upon his approach the murderers fled to an unknown land. Is it not possible that this unknown land was Urartu? If so, the author of v.87 must have been exceedingly well- informed. (Cf. Josephus’ quotation from Berossus.) (e) It is important to note the accurate reference to Sennacherib’s successor. “Mall (C.A.H. v.III p. 279) rather than to admit a natural anachronism, sug- gests the possibility that the clash between the Egyptians and the Assyrians described by Herodotus II 141 and II K XVIII 17ff. (BC) refers to Essarhaddon’s unsuccessful invasion of Egypt. He prefers this new hypothesis to the hypothesis of a second invasion by Sennacherib, (which he defends in A.H.N.E. 5th edition, 1920), because there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that Sennacherib invaded Palestine during the last years of his reign. Hall admits that it may have been possible for Tirhakah to have been in command of an Egyptian army in 701, but in order to explain the reference to Tirhakah as King of Ethiopia, he prefers to assume that both the Egyptians and the Hebrews confused Essarhaddon with Sennacherib. (Sic! A remarkable coincidence). This view is shared by S. Smith, C.A.H. v.III p. 74. bb Os1wy? ma) Asp nsywo onyn rm? _..payp yw) 9D 159) The expression YiIS7 MIPis used by II Isaiah in a literal sense (Is. XLII 3). : Sly] K XVIII 4 (cf. Il Chr. XXIX-XXXI). The chief reasons for doubting the historicity of the account of Hezekiah’s reformrs are (a) its similarity to the reforms of Josiah and (b) to the lack of reference in the description of Josiah’s reforms to a similar reform during the time of Hezekiah (cf.JI K XXIII 18; cf.1I K XXIII 22 and II Chr. Ch.XXX, especially verses 21 and 26). Many scholars believe that the reforms of Hezekiah may have been limited to the breaking of the bronze serpent (there is no reason for questioning the historicity of this statement—the description has the earmarks of an authentic account. That a bronze serpent was worshipped in the Temple is very possible. It is also probable that there was a popular notion that this serpent derived its sanctity from Moses ninrself. If so, the fact that in the detailed statement of all the abominations removed from the Temple by Josiah, there is no reference to this bronze serpent, seems to 76 Notes to Chapter Il be a confirmation of the statement that this bronze serpent ( 1nwns) was destroyed by Hezekiah). They assume that the extension of Hezekiah’s reforms to include the removal of the high-places was influenced by the description of Josiah’s reforms. (An editor living after Josiah’s reforms had taken root might naturally have inferred that 1f Hezekiah was a pious king, who re Cone was right zn the eyes of the not have countenanced the high-places. Morrie gion * advocated by Prof. Fullerton. Consequently, Prof. Fullerton believes that v.22 may be a genuine reproduction of an argument used by Rabshakeh, if Rabshakeh’s address was delivered towards the end of Hezekiah’s reign. ssEven if we grant that v.22 could not have been an argument used by Rabshakeh, it does not necessarily imply that the whole address is unhistorical. It is not possible to impugn the whole by impugning one element, because there always remains the possibility that this element was added at a later time, This possibility is strengthened py the fact that in the summaries of Rabshakeh’s address in C, this argument is omitted. According to B, Rabshakeh presented three arguments to prove that there is no hope for the Judeans. (1) They can not depend upon Egypt for assistance, because Egypt is a bruised reed (v.21), and they can not do without Egypt, beesuse they have no cavalry of their own (vv.23, 24). : ; , (2) Tney can not depend upon their God, because their God is wroth, since His places of worship have been destroyed (v.22). (V.25 mray be considered as a continuation of the argument presented in v.22. The Assyrian would have been very much surprised to learn that a Judean had announced that the God of the Judeans would bring about the destruction of Judah. ‘This extraordinary prediction would be more intelligible to him, if he assumed that such a strange decision of a national deity had been caused by the destruction of that deity’s places of worship, than if he tried to associate that decision with the motivating causes announced by the prophet). (3) They can not depend upon their God, because He is no match for the god of Assyria-Asur. No other god has been able to resist successfully the god of Assyria—there is no reason for the Judeans assuming that it would be different in their case (vv.30, 33-35). In C, only the last argument is presented. Is it not possible that this, therefore, was the argument actually used by Rabshakeh, and that the other arguments represent later additions? It is not possible to use as an argument in favor of this assumption the inconsistency between arguments 2 and 8, because it is just as easy to assume that Rabshakeh did not sense the delightful inconsistency, as it is to assume that the one, who elaborated the address and added imaginary arguments, did not sense it. (The Chronicler concentrates on argument 3, but he also includes a reference to the second argument. Since the Chronicler is evidently summarizing a text corresponding to the text found in our book of Kings, no inferences can be made on the basis of Chronicles). BIC Tt PESA NNO 1-8 s9But it is very possible that the Assyrians were well informed of everything that was going on in all their vassal states, and that a detailed report of Isaiah’s strange predictons had been sent on to Nineveh by the Assyrian representatives in Jerusalem. If so, it would not have been impossible for the Assyrian to use this seemingly strange argument, since he knew that his hearers would understand that he was alluding to utterances made by one of their own prophets. 61J placed vv.26 and 27 in brackets to indicate that they are not part of Rabshakeh’s speech. 682Cf, Lidzbarski—Altaramaische Urkunden aus Assur. (W.V.D.O.G. v.X XXVIII) “Bei den Ausgrabungen in Assur wurden mehrere Urkunden in Aramdischer Sprache gefunden, die all dem 7 Jahrhundert v.Chr. angehoéren. Die Verwendung der Araméai- schen Schrift in Assyrien und Babylonien lisst sich nach der Keilschrifttexten und bildlichen Darstellungen, bis in das 9 Jahrhundert v.Chr. verfolgen.’”’ I have quoted Lidzbarski’s opening paragraph. Cf. also C. I. 'S. Part JI v.I Ch.1. It is interesting,to note some of the’ lion- weights discussed bear cuneiform inscriptions indicating that they were made during the reigns of Shalmeneser, Sargon and Sennacherib. (When these lion-weights were first found by Layard, the bilingual inscriptions attracted considerable attention; but is was assumed that the Semitic inscrptons were Phoenician. cf.Rawlinson, J.R.A.S. v.X XI (new series I) p. 187ff. and Layard Babylon and Nineveh (1853) p. 600ff. ®8This passage is difficult regardless whether we consider Rabahakenre speech as original, or whether we regard it as the composition of an imaginative Hebrew writer. Unless we resort to the easy way of escaping all difficulties by assuming that it is a gloss of a later writer, it is hard to meet this difficulty. 66Cf. Is. X 11. The hypothetical boast attributed to Sennacherib by Isaiah (X 9-11) may be a reference to this argument of Rabshakeh—or we may assume that this was a customary argument used by the Assyrians, and consequently X 9-11 is not a specific reference. If we take for granted that the address attributed to Rabshakeh is an imaginary composition, then it is possible to assume that this argument is an elaboration of Isiah’s hypothetical description of Sennacherib’s boast. (Another illustration of the vicious circle.) Those, who amend the text in accordance with the Septuagint to read that the Hebrew ambassadors were silent, take away the most vivid element from the picture. Notes to Chapter Il 77 To conceive the people as silent, although impressed, is the stroke of an artist, (i.e. if it is not an actual portrayal of what transpired). | i } In accordance with Sennacherib’s annals, Hezekiah’s mercenaries, as well as his regular troops deserted, but it is not possible to come to any conclusion as to when this happened. oA HLNCE, p. 491. Cf. Ex. XII 29; Nu. XXV 8b, 9; I S V6; II S XXIV 16. ®Meinhold—-Die Jesajaerzahlungen, pp. 32ff. Tliad I, 39. } * ®Accordingly, just as the Hebrews attributed Sennacherib’s failure to capture Terusalem to the intervention of their God, so the Egyptians may have interpreted the Assyrians’ failure to follow up their opportunity as due to the intervention of their god (or gods). ; F y “These six hypotheses do not exhaust all the possibilities. Kleinert’s discredited hypothesis that A refers to a campaign of Sargon, and B C to Sennacherib’s third campaign, has been discussed elsewhere. S. Smith (followed by H. R. Hall) believes that A refers to the campaign of 701 and B C and Herodotus 141 to a campaign of Essarhaddon. C. A. H. v.III pp. 74ff. The Assyrian annalist deliberately confined his attention to the first part of the campaign, because it was in his interest to do so. Moreover, he did not narrate his story in correct chronological sequence, in order to give the impresson that he had described the entire campaign. The Assyrian annalist did not wish to admit that the campaign ended abruptly, and that the return to Assyria was conditioned, not by Sennacherib’s desires, but by tircumstances beyond his control. Moreover, in order to give the inrpression that Sennacherib had attained his objectives, he was compelled to change the chronological sequence. There are some scholars, who believe that the chronological sequence of B and A was the reverse of the order given in the Bible. Accordingly, Sennacherib ended his zampaign abruptly (because of rumors of unrest in Babylonia, yr of an advancing Egyptian army, or both) without capturing Jerusalem, but Hezekiah, who had suffered severe losses during the campaign, decided to profess loyalty to Assyria, and sent his tribute to Nineveh. “Tf so, it becomes difficult to explain why the author of the Kings account, who also made use of the state annals (vv.14-15) should have failed to include any reference to the attempt of Hezekiah to provide for the defence of Jerusalem. Accordingly, all the references have the same thing in mind, some emphasizing one aspect, and others, the other. Most scholars believe that these references describe the diverting of the waters of Gihon, which originally flowed into the Kidron valley into the pool of Siloam, an artificial reservoir built within the city proper. This was done by means of a tunnel cut through the rock (the Siloam Tunnel). 7Tsaiah’s purpose in describing Hezekiah’s efforts to prepare for a siege, is in order to contrast the reliance of the people of Judah on human means, and their failure to trust in God; whereas the Chronicler pictures Hezekiah as putting his chief trust upon Divine assistance, “for there is a Greater with us than with him; with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord, our God, to help us, and to fight our battles.” 77In accordance with this theory, the first disappointment of the Allies consisted in the late arrival of the Egyptian contingent, and in the fact that Sennacherib was not stopped until after Sidon and Ashkelon had fallen. Their second disappointment would naturally have been the outcome of the battle of Eltekeh. 78As has been indicated elsewhere, some scholars believe that Sennacherib allowed Hezekiah to buy his pardon, because he was unwilling to undertake such a formidable task as the siege of Jerusalem (see p. 19). It is hardly likely that Jerusalem was an impregnable fortress, if the preparations for defence were left for the last minute. The advocates of the theory of a second campaign usually ascribe all of Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian prophecies to the time when that campaign was made. It is not probable that all these prophecies were made during a very short interval. Nevertheless, it is important to note that such an assumption is not altogether impossible. 8A very important reason for doubting the correctness of the assertion that Hezekiah’s defence measures were undertaken at the last moment, irrespective of the time that they were made, is that the nature of Hezekiah’s undertakings, the building of an inner wall as well as an outer wall (some archaeologists believe that these walls have been identified) and an aqueduct, does not correspond with the frenzied efforts involved in a last minute attempt to meet an emergency. Perhaps the rude construc- tion of the [Siloam tunnel may be presented as evidence in favor of the accuracy of the Chronicler’s statement. (Incidentally, if this tunnel was built during the stress of war, it does not indicate that the people of Judah were as deficient in engineering skill as is generally supposed.) SINot necessarily. immediately after. Cf. II Chr. XXIX 83ff. S.No inference can be drawn from the fact that of all that transpired during Hezekiah’s reign, the Reformation is the first thing described in Kings; because II K XVIII 3, 5-7 are a summary of the entire reign and II K XVIII 4 was probably introduced where it was, in order to support the contention of v.3. sCf. II K XIX 8. §4V.19 may be taken as an indication of the Chronicler’s feelings. CuHaptTer III. THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH Contemporary prophecy has for a long time been recognized as a very important source for the reconstruction of Biblical history. In view of the important role played by the prophet Isaiah during the crisis of 701, his prophecies would furnish us with valuable clues for the solution of many unsolved problems involved in the reconstruction of the story of that crisis, provided it would be pos- sible to establish definitely which prophecies were delivered by him, and to determine the circumstances under which a given oracle was spoken or written. Unfortunately, such is not the case. We are certain that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is a post exilic work; we are also reasonably certain that even the first part (Ch. 1—xxxrx) when taken by itself, represents a post exilic compilation of independent collections of [sianic prophecies. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that a number of the prophecies contained in some of these collections are not Isaiah’s. There are a number of prophecies (and passages) concerning which there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars. Some scholars are convinced that these prophecies are genuinely Isianic; others are equally certain that they are post exilic, and still others, while admitting that in their present form there is ground for suspecting their authenticity, maintain that they are derived from or based on genuine Isianic oracles. Some of the theories concerning Sennacherib’s invasion are based on the prophe- cies belonging to this category. The attitude of scholars towards a given theory will naturally depend upon their attitude towards the passage upon which it is based, and vice-versa, the attitude of scholars towards a given passage will frequently depend upon the theory that they are ready to entertain. Furthermore, the arrangement of the book of Isaiah is not chronological, consequently, the date of every prophecy must be determined on the basis of internal evidence. Unfortunately, the criteria which guide scholars in deciding to which period to assign a given prophecy are not definite. As a result, there is again considerable disagreement amongst scholars. Sometimes, we are A Critical Source Study 79 confronted with a vicious circle. The criterion used by a partic- ular scholar in determining whether a given prophecy belongs to a certain period of the prophet’s career depends on a hypothetical reconstruction of the historical circumstances of that period. Other scholars, starting out from different premises, reach different con- clusions concerning this prophecy. They may then use this oracle (or rather their interpretation of it) as a means of discrediting the hypothesis in question. The prophecies which have been assigned by most scholars to the period of the Assyrian crisis (705-700) divide themselves into two groups: Isaiah anticipates in the one, the destruction of his people; in the other, a great deliverance. The reconciliation of these two groups of prophecies is one of the difficult problems of Isaiah criticism. Some scholars try to meet the problem by placing all the pro-Assyrian prophecies in an earlier period of Isaiah’s career (the reign of Sargon) and limiting his prophecies during the crisis of 701 to the anti-Assyrian. Other scholars maintain that the change in Isaiah’s views took place during the crisis, and therefore contend that some or all of the pro-Assyrian prophecies belong to the period in which the preparations were made for the rebellion (705-701), and that the anti-Assyrian proph- ecies were delivered while the Assyrians were devastating the country. Those who believe that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, one in 701 and one in 690, naturally argue that the first group of prophecies were delivered by Isaiah during the first invasion and the other during the second. In fact, the advocates of this hypothesis regard the two groups of prophecies representing such divergent views as a confirmation of their theory that there were two campaigns. : There is a difficulty with all the attempts at reconciling the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian prophecies by ascribing each group to a different period and by assuming that between these two periods the prophet experienced a profound change of mind, viz., that in some oracles the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian views are blended together and in their present form, seem to indicate that both views were expressed at the same time. Historic reconstruction based on the oracles of Isaiah will therefore differ in accordance with our manner of dividing the prophecies into independent oracles. 80 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine Here too, there is considerable disparity of opinion due to the fact that every scholar must base his judgment on vague criteria, which are subjective rather than objective. Another factor, which makes it difficult to build historic theories on the basis of evidence presented by contemporary prophecy, is that the meaning of certain passages is not clear. In one case the construction put on a preposition determines whether the pas- sage should be regarded as minatory or conciliatory. Sometimes the similies used by the prophet are ambiguous in character and allow different interpretations, opposite in character. Sometimes, the difference in construction is due to the fact that one inter- preter tries to explain a simile in the light of the entire passage as it has come down to us in the Massoretic Text, whereas the other insists that certain verses are later interpolations and explains the remainder of the passage accordingly. In view of the fact that differences in interpretation based on different answers to the various problems that each prophecy pre- sents lead to differences in historic reconstruction, it is necessary to consider separately all the prophecies which have been ascribed by recent scholars to the time when Sennacherib’s invasion or in- visions took place, to examine the different theories concerning each prophecy, and to note the bearing of these theories respectively on the problem of our study. Accordingly, the following prophe- cies will be discussed. (A) CHS. xxvui-xxxn; (B) x 5-34, x1v 24-27, xvi 12-14; cu. xvi; (C) xxi 1-14, xxi 15-25, xxm 1-15, 1 7-9. A. Cu. XXVII-XXXIII’ {t is usually assumed that the Isianic prophecies contained in this collection were delivered between 705 and 701, from the time that the leaders in Judah began to intrigue with Egypt in prepara- tion for revolt, up to the time of the invasion. If the latter assumption is correct, then these chapters form a very important source from which to derive information concerning conditions in Judah prior to the revolt. It is important, however, to take cognizance of the fact that even if this assumption is correct, there is no way of substantiating it. During the reign of Sargon, there were several periods of unrest, when rebellion was being fomented in Judah, when embassies were A Critical Source Study 81 undoubtedly sent to Egypt—when it would have been possible for Isaiah to have delivered all or some of the anti-Egyptian addresses found in these chapters. The hypothesis that Judah intrigued with Egypt during the period that culminated in the revolt of Ashdod is confirmed by the fact that Sargon, in describing his campaign against that city, specifically alludes to Judah, together with the Philistines, Edomites and Moabites, sending presents to Pharaoh in order to induce him to join their confederation.’ It is also possible that the death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah to the throne, may have marked a turning point in Judah’s attitude towards Assyria; and that the policy of hostility to Assyria and dependance upon Egypt was inaugurated at the very beginning of Hezekiah’s reign. If so, it is possible that some or all of the anti-Egyptian oracles might belong to as early a period as the reign of Shalmeneser, or else, to the early years of Sargon’s reign.’ The scholars, who believe that the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyr- ian oracles could not have been delivered during the same period of the prophet’s career, are naturally inclined to favor the above hypotheses. Those scholars, however, who believe that some of the so-called pro-Assyrian oracles were delivered at the same time as the anti-Assyrian, that simultaneously with his warnings to his people, that the shortsighted policy of the Judean leaders would result in a serious calamity for Judah, he was anticipating an overwhelming disaster for the Assyrian hosts, have no interest in assigning the anti-Egyptian oracles to an earlier period. Similarly, those scholars, who believe that Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria underwent a profound change during the invasion, have no reason for favoring an early date for these oracles. On the other hand, those scholars, who, in support of the theory that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, maintain that during the crisis of 701, Isaiah was consistently pro-Assyrian and that all the anti-Assyrian oracles belong to a later period of the prophet’s life, naturally do not favor the view that all the pro-Assyrian oracles contained in this collection belong to the reign of Sargon or Shalmeneser. They prefer to place some or all during the early years of Senna- cherib. If Chapters XXVIII-xxxllI represent a collection of prophecies delivered during a brief period of time, then all the anti-Egyptian §2 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine oracles belong to the reign of Sennacherib or none does, and the date of all the oracles can be determined by determining the date of one. Scholars are divided concerning this question. Some scholars believe that these chapters represent a collection of prophecies made by Isaiah himself, during one period,* or that a nucleus was prepared by the prophet, and that to this nucleus were added other prophecies by his disciples, containing the same central thought." This collection is assumed to be the product of the order he received to inscribe his views in a book.* There is a difference of opinion concerning the implication of xxx 8." Some scholars believe that this verse refers to the eryptic message of 7b, others, that it refers to all the predictions of the same character he made at that time. Other scholars not only deny that these chapters contain a collec- tion of prophecies delivered at one time, but maintain that there ig no organic relation between the various oracles contained in this collection.* They are inclined to explain the unity underlying this collection as being something very artificial. From the fact that so many oracles start with the word °17 they infer that these chapters represent a collection of ‘1 prophecies and that the prophecies have no organic relation with one another. 1. XXVIII 1-4 From the above discussion, it is clear that it is not necessary to assume that all the prophecies contained in these chapters were delivered at one time. In fact, the contrary assumption is more natural, for in all likelihood, xxvm1 1-4 was delivered before the destruction of Samaria,’ and it is not probable that all the other prophecies contained in these chapters belong to so early a period. The inclusion of xxvin 1-4 in this collection does not necessarily prove, however, that this collection does not consist of prophecies delivered during one short period (either during the reign of Sargon or Sennacherib), because it may be argued that the oracle against Samaria was repeated,” on a later occasion, as a warning to the leaders in Judah that if they persist in following their headlong policy, they would meet the fate of Judah’s sister kingdom.” Several reasons may be attributed to the prophet for repeating an oracle—he may have been interested in emphasizing A Critical Source Study 83 the similarity of conditions in Jerusalem to those that prevailed in Samaria, shortly before the fall of that city; or, he may have been motivated by the desire to remind his hearers that on a previous occasion, he had made a grim pronouncement, that that prediction had been only too realistically fulfilled, in order that his hearers should take more seriously the warning he was about to give them. xxv 7 tends to confirm this view, because xxvii 7 ff. seems to depend on xxvii 1-4. Wellhausen and Ehrlich go a step further. They deny the ne- cessity to presume that xxvilr 1-4 was originally delivered at an earlier period. They believe that this oracle refers to Jerusalem and not to Samaria. The reference to Samaria they interpret as a figure of speech. Kittel disagrees with this view, because the de- scription suits Samaria so much better than Jerusalem. This argu- ment does not possess very much force, because Isaiah, in symboliz- ing Jerusalem as Samaria, may have consistently carried his figure through by using description appropriate to the latter city. An- other argument that has been suggested as proof of an early date for the original delivery of this prophecy, is the vague reference to Assyria. it is not likely that Isaiah would have referred to the powerful Assyria in this vague manner, after Palestinians had so vividly experienced Assyrian power and cruelty. 2. XXXII 9-14 Scholars, who believe that during the crisis of 701, Isaiah was awaiting the visitation of Judgment, not only upon his own people, but also upon the Assyrian invaders, prefer to regard xxxu 9-14 as an earlier oracle.” In this prophecy, the prophet anticipates a thorough devastation of the entire country, together with the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. It does not contain any reference to an ultimate disaster to Assyria. Can we assume that only a short interval of time separates this oracle from the anti-Assyrian oracles, and that during this brief period, Isaiah underwent a profound experience which led him to revise his philosophy of History? In other words, can we assume that xxx 9-14 represents Isaiah’s attitude between 705-701 and that all the prophecies containing predictions against Assyria were made during the last stage of Sennacherib’s cam- paign? Or, is it necessary to assume that the two kinds of proph- 84 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine ecies can only be reconciled with one another, if we assume that there were two crises; that during the first, Isaiah delivered those prophecies in which is described the doom of his own people, and during the second, those describing the doom of Assyria? 3. XXX 27-33 This last hypothesis is particularly helpful, in reconciling Isaiah xxx 27-33 with the anti-Judah oracles. In this oracle there is no reference to the fate of Judah—the poem concerns itself only with the exaltation and outbursts of joy that will break forth, when the Lord will appear to visit His judgment upon the hated enemy. But, because of the lack of sobriety, many scholars have questioned the Isianic genuineness of this oracle.” With this view, concur not only those scholars who find it difficult to harmonize this oracle with other oracles attributed to the period when Sennacherib’s third campaign took place, but also scholars who believe there were two campaigns.” 4. XXIX 1-8 anp Cu. XXXI Whether we favor the view that all the anti-Judean predictions were made before a given point in time, and all the anti-Assyrian after that point, or that Isaiah was expecting the punishment of Assyria at the same time that he was anticipating Judah’s going through the crucible of suffering, depends in large measure upon our attitude to xxx1x 1-8 and to CH. Xxx1.” If we agree with Skinner that “the threat of disaster to Jerusalem is so intimately blended with the hope of her deliverance, that it is extremely difficult to disentangle them,” then we must accept his conclusion “that these passages reflect the tension in Isaiah’s mind at one point of his career—the conflict between a ‘fearful looking for of judgment’ even to the uttermost, and the assurance: of ultimate salvation of what was good in Israel.” Scholars, how- ever, who are unwilling to accept this conclusion, refuse to accept his premise.” By separating the passages of promise from the passages of threatening, they give to these passages a new com- plexion, which makes it possible to place upon them an altogether different construction.” A Critical Source Study 85 Duhm regards xxx 1-4a as the Isianic oracle, and vv. 5-7" as a supplement on the part of the editor, who did not wish to leave the threat to Zion, God’s city, without consolatory conclusion. CH. XXxxI he conceives as a series of unrelated fragments rather than as a continuous prophecy. Vv. 1-3, when taken by themselves, repre- sent an anti-Egyptian oracle similar in character to xxx 1-17; vv. 4, 5, 8, 9 which promise God’s protection of Jerusalem and predict the destruction of Assyria through God’s Personal intervention Duhm places in the same period of Isaiah’s prophecies as xxx 27-33.” Marti reaches a similar conclusion, but his analysis is different. By limiting xxix 1-8 to wv. 1-4a, 5c, 6 and omitting vv. 5, 7, 8, which he regards as later non-Isianic additions, he makes the sudden visita- tion of God’s judgment apply to Judah and not to Assyria.” xxx1 1-9 Marti also regards as a composite. Vv. 1-3 he regards as parallel to xxx 1-3. V.4 he interprets as a threat to Jerusalem. The shep- herds are the Egyptians. Just as a lion does not let go his booty through fear of the shepherds, so the Lord will not let go Jerusalem because of the noise and lamentations of the Egyptians. The rest of the chapter Marti divides as follows: 5a (minus the first two words NiDY OMBYD) 5b, 8a, 9b he regards as a non-Isianic, anti- Assyrian oracle, related in character to xxx 27-33. (vv. 8b, 9a he does not regard as a continuation of 8a) ; vv. 6 and 7 he believes to be either an Isianic remnant or a marginal gloss. In either case, he assumes that they have been interposed and that 8a is a continua- tion of v. 5. Those who do not separate the verses containing the anti-Assyrian predictions from those containing the anti-Judean, but regard xxix 1-8 and Ch. xxxI as continuous prophecy, must assign a very early date to Isaiah’s conviction that Assyria too must answer before the bar of Judgment, because xx1x lb implies that the danger is still very far off. The festivals are still being celebrated in the usual manner, and there seems to be no consciousness of danger. In fact, some scholars are inclined to believe that this oracle must have been delivered as early as the reign of Sargon, some time before Judah began to plan revolt.” An early date for Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian prophecies supports the contention of some scholars that I xxxvi 37ff. is a legendary story. If, long before there was any danger in Judah, Isaiah had 86 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine predicted the inviolability of Zion, and if, during the siege, at a time when all hope of saving the city had been given up, this view had been reiterated by the prophet, then a sudden raising of the siege would be interpreted as the realisation of the prophet’s pre- diction, even if the raising of the siege were not accompanied by an annihilation of the Assyrian army, such as the prophet had anticipated. If the story, how Jerusalem had been saved at the very last moment, in accordance with the prophet’s predictions, would be told over and over again, people, in the course of time. would begin to believe that his entire prediction had been realised. In view of the fact, that Isaiah had predicted a great catastrophe to the Assyrian army, that this catastrophe would come suddenly and that it would take place on the soil of Judah—at the very moment when the coveted prize was about to fall into the hands of the Assyrian, there might evolve a story of a plague, similar to the one found in the Book of Kings. Such a story would event: ually become very deep-rooted and be accepted unquestioningly, even though it would not have an historic basis. This hypothesis is built upon a very logical chain of assumptions. Nevertheless, it does not present a very strong degree of probability. If the story of the plague is entirely legendary, and does not contain an historic kernel, it is hard to explain the coincidence that Herodotus, relying upon Egyptian sources, and altogether unfamiliar with the Hebrew tale should also imply that Sennacherib’s army met with a sudden, overwhelming disaster. In the previous discussion, we have seen to what different con- clusions scholars can come if they regard a given section as con- tinuous prophecy, or if they divide it into separate oracles; if they regard the section as Isianic in its entirety, or if they look upon certain verses as interpolations of later writers. There will naturally be a similar difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of oracles of which the authorship is in doubt—if Isianic, they have one implication—if non-Isianic, another. Isianic authorship has been questioned concerning the following: xxvii 5, 6; xxix 16-24, Xxx, 18-265) xxxit 1-32 xxx 9} (CHA XXII. (a) xxvnot 5, 6—if Isianic, and if connected with xxvui 1-4, then xy py». must refer to the destruction of Samaria. Is it os ~~ ~] A Critical Source Study likely that Isaiah conceived Judah (together with the survivors of Samaria) as the Holy Remnant, and that he anticipated a Messianic regeneration as the result of the destruction of Samaria? More- over, is it probable that as early as some time before 722 Isaiah already anticipated an Assyrian defeat?” An affirmative answer to the latter question would have a significant implication for the interpretation of other oracles discussed in this chapter. Most scholars escape this implication because they do not regard these verses as Isianic. (6) xxix 16-24; xxx 18-26. Most scholars are agreed that these two oracles are related and that if one passage is assigned to a later period, it is necessary to do so in regard to the other, because they were probably written by the same author. Neither passage contains references to a historic situation later than the time of the prophet. The Isianic authorship has been questioned solely on the ground of linguistic style and thought, i.e., upon the suspicion that the underly- ing conceptions of the prophecy and that the similes used represent a later age than that of Isaiah. Whenever the authenticity of a passage is questioned on such ground, there is room for difference of opinion and the decision is largely subjective. ! If xxix 16-24 is regarded as Isianic™ and a sequel to xxix 15, then xx1x 15 implies that Isaiah opposes the Egyptian alliance, not because he is afraid of the outcome of the alliance, but because he appreciates the futility of human effort to accomplish that which it has been purposed to bring about by Divine intervention. Ac- cordingly, the point of view underlying xx1x 15ff. does not differ from that underlying cH. xvi, and there is no room for the contention maintained by many scholars that CH. xvIII was neces- sarily written at a later time. In other words, Isaiah must be conceived as anticipating punishment for the Assyrian tyrant at the time that he was busily engaged in denouncing the secret intrigues which were made in preparation for revolt. It becomes necessary, therefore, to ascribe the anti-Egyptian predictions, which do not harmonize with this view to an earlier period. If xx1x 16-24 is regarded as un-Isianic, no inferences can be based upon it. (c) xxxt 1-8. Many scholars have questioned the Isianic authorship of this oracle, because the King is idealized less than the ideal king described in 1x 1-6 and x1 1-4. This objection has been 88 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine answered by the assumption that in this oracle Isaiah is not referring to a Messianic King, but to Hezekiah. Another answer that has been suggested, is that in this oracle, Isaiah is not concerned with the King, but with the new social order which will follow the destruction of Assyria and the deliverance of Jerusalem. There can be no doubt, that at the time that Isaiah was looking forward to the visitation of Judgment upon Assyria, he sincerely anticipated that the Assyrian crisis would culminate in a social regeneration, and that in the new Judah, which would come forth out of the crucible of suffering, justice and righteousness would prevail.” Another argument that has been given in support of the theory that this passage is not Isianic, is that the style of vv. 6-8 is not at all characteristic of Isaiah. This argument loses all of its force, if we agree with Duhm that these verses represent a gloss, which has been added by a late editor to a genuine oracle of Isaiah. (d) xxxm 19. If the forest refers to Assyria and the city to Jerusalem, then this passage, if Isianic, clearly indicates that Isaiah anticipated the humiliation of Jerusalem, simultaneously with the fall of Assyria. Most scholars, however, do not regard this verse as Isianic. It certainly does not belong in its present position be- tween v. 18 and v. 20. It is also possible to interpret the forest as a reference to Judah and not to Assyria. Accordingly, this verse con- tains no allusion to Judgment upon Assyria. (e) cH. xxxim. It is of special importance from the point of view of this study, to determine whether cH. xxx is Isianic. The tyrant is referred to in this chapter as 43,5 . Those who assume that the tyrant in question is Sennacherib, interpret the appellation as a reference to Sennacherib’s demand for the surrender of the city, after he had agreed to accept tribute. If it is true that Isaiah was shocked by Sennacherib’s failure to comply with the condition of the stipulated agreement, and as a result addressed CH. XXXII to him, then this chapter may be regarded as the turning point in his attitude towards Assyria.” In accordance with this hypothesis, up to that moment Isaiah had not concerned himself with the fate of Assyria. Assyria was to Isaiah the instrument God had chosen to devastate Judah, so that through punishment, Judah might become God-conscious. The relation of God to this tool had not concerned him. Sennacherib’s act of perfidy, however, directed the prophet’s A Critical Source Study 89 attitude to the problem. As a result, we have his pronouncement that judgment would be visited upon Assyria (x 5-34). Accordingly, it must be assumed that all the anti-Assyrian prophecies were delivered during the last stage of the campaign, after Sennacherib had received Hezekiah’s tribute, and in spite of that fact, had demanded the sur- render of Jerusalem. This hypothesis is supported by the explicit statement in v.8, that the tyrant had broken the covenant. The advocates of this hypothesis also use v.7 to support their theory, but the situation implied in v.7 is not clear. To find a reason for the weeping of the ambassadors, and to subsequently use that reason as a support of the hypothesis, is a far fetched method of arguing. If this chapter is declared un-Isianic, the whole structure, which has been built upon this chapter as a basis, falls to the ground. Most critics do not regard this chapter as Isianic, on the ground that. the style, images and conceptions are not Isianic. The favorite view is that the unnamed tyrant is Antiochus Eupator.” B. ANTI-ASSYRIAN PROPHECIES.* l. X 5-34 Some scholars believe that this prophecy marks the turning point in Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria and that it was delivered at the time that he first became convinced that Assyria too would be subjected to Divine Judgment. When was this decision reached? The answer to this question is of paramount importance for a critical consideration of the oracles of Isaiah, from the point of view of their source value. It would be natural to assume that Isaiah’s attention was directed to the problem of Assyria’s place in the Providential scheme of History at the time when Israel, Judah’s sister kingdom, was destroyed. At that time, he had occasion to observe, at close range, the Assyrian cruel and savage methods of warfare. Moreover, Isaiah would have undoubtedly been profoundly influenced by con- temptuous reference to the God of Israel—by the Assyrian placing of that God in the same category as the gods of the other peoples, whom it had conquered. The recognition that Assyria was not conscious of her Divine mission, and that the Assyrian conquests 90 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine were not motivated by a moral purpose, but rather by the lust for power, would have brought the prophet face to face with the problem of justifying the Divine use of an immoral means for a moral end. Consequently, he would have been compelled to re- consider and to re-analyse his philosophy of history. A profounder conception of the Divine relationship to Assyria, “the rod of His wrath”, would have naturally developed out of such a reconsider- ation. The chief objection to this theory is the reference in v. 9 to the capture of Carcemish, which took place in 717. The force of this objection is not as strong as most scholars seem to think, because there is no reason for identifying the allusion with the capture of Carcemish in 717. Carcemish was conquered several times. It was reduced to an Assyrian province as early as 740. A much more powerful argument against 721 as the date of this prophecy is the fact that at the time of the revolt of Ashdod (711), the prophet was anticipating the Assyrian conquest of Egypt and thiopia (CH. xx) and his attitude, at that time, was not at all consistent with the psychological change which this prophecy pre- supposes. it is, therefore, safe to assume that the prophecy was delivered some time after 710, either during the reign of Sargon or Sennecherib. In some of the oracles contained within CH. XXVIII-XXXIII, Isaiah expresses views, which can be reconciled with the view expressed in x 5-34 only with great difficulty. Most scholars, therefore, agree that the prophecy we are discussing, as well as the other anti-Assyrian prophecies, must have been delivered at a later date than those in which he denounces the alliance with Egypt, and predicts the terrible consequences that will follow the attempt to throw off the Assyrian yoke. As has already been shown, there is no way of definitely establishing the date of the anti-Egyptian oracles. Those scholars, who place them during the early years of Sennacherib’s reign, while the preparations for the revolt were taking place, must necessarily assume that x 5-34 is later than 702. The advocates of the theory that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib, usually presume that Isaiah changed his attitude towards Assyria sometime between the two campaigns. They would, A Critical Source Study 91 therefore, place this and kindred prophecies in the first decade of the 7th century. Those, who believe that there was only one campaign, claim that Isaiah’s change in attitude took place sometime during the invasion. The theory based on cH. xxxi, that this change was caused by an act of perfidy on the part of Sennacherib, has already been discussed. In this connection it is important to note that if this oracle had been motivated by Sennacherib’s perfidy, the prophet, instead of laying stress upon Assyrian pride or boastfulness, would have laid it on Assyrian treachery and unreliability. The nature of the imaginary speech Isaiah places in the mouth of the Assyrian King makes it much more tempting to assume that the specific circumstance, which occasioned the prophet’s outburst of indignation against the Assyrian, was the boastful speech of Rabshakeh. The resemblance between vv. 9-1] and xxxv1 18-20 is too close to be accidental. Moreover, it would be difficult to find a more logical moment for Isaiah to realize that the Assyrian had no appreciation whatsoever of his mission, than the moment in which he heard the boastful Assyrian attribute all his success to his own prowess, and blasphemed the “living God of Israel”’. Those scholars, however, who doubt the historicity of Rabshakeh’s address, can easily reverse the supposition; instead of assuming that x 9-11 is based on an address actually delivered by an ambassador of the Assyrian king, they can assume that the author of the imaginary speech attributed to Rabshakeh, in CH. xxxvi, used the imaginary speech in cH. x as his model. There is another possibility, viz. that vv. 9-11 reflect a customary manner of speech that Assyrian emissaries used in argument, when trying to convince cities to surrender. If so, no inference can be drawn in regard to the historicity of Rabshakeh’s address. There is no specific evidence which supports the last theory. The most common assumption is that Isaiah’s change of heart took place while Sennacherib was trampling and destroying city after city in Southern Judah. In the hour of his countrymen’s grief, there was no room for denunciatory addresses—he was at one with his people. During those critical moments he conceived a deeper insight into his own philosophy of history. Objection to so late a date for the beginning of Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian attitude 92 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine may be made on the basis of vv. 28-34. In view of the fact that the route described in vv. 28-34 does not correspond with the route actually taken by Sennacherib and his army, this oracle can not be post-eventum. Consequently, it is necessary to postulate that this oracle was composed at the very beginning of Sennacherib’s third campaign, at the very latest, during the campaign in Phoenicia. Vv. 28-34, however, do not constitute an integral part of the foregoing. They represent an independent oracle, and there is considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars concerning the relation of this oracle to those that precede it. Some scholars regard x 5-34 as a series of oracles representing one point of view, all of which were delivered within a brief period of time, and welded together, perhaps by the prophet himself, into a literary unity. Other scholars deny not only oratorical unity, but literary unity as well. They regard x 5-34 as a composite of a number of independent oracles, which have very little organic relation with one another.” There are some scholars who contend that x 28-34 does not refer to the Assyrians at all. They assume that it was delivered during the crisis of 735 and that the reference is to the Syro-Ephraimitic armies. If this view is correct, then this oracle has no relation whatsoever to the problem of our study, and can not be used as a means of determining the date of x 5-19. The main support for the last named theory is the opinion of the scholars, who maintain it, that the route is too vividly described to be imaginary. We know the route taken by the Assyrians; we do not know the route taken by the Syro-Ephraimites, therefore if the de- scription is derived from experience, it can not refer to the former— it may refer to the latter. Schmidt accepts the premise stipulated in this hypothesis, but he does not accept the conclusion. He agrees with the scholars who entertain this hypothesis, that the description is too vivid to be entirely imaginary—and at the same time he agrees with the scholars who place this oracle at the beginning of Sen- nacherib’s campaign. He believes that the Syro-Ephraimitic hosts followed this route, a very difficult one, but extremely well-suited for a surprise attack. Schmidt thinks that Isaiah portrayed the Assyrians as following this route for the sake of dramatic effect in order to recall the bitter anguish of those days.” Just as vv. 28-34 present difficulties to the advocates of the theory A Critical Source Study 93 that there was only one campaign, by necessitating an early date for the anti-Assyrian point of view,” so vv. 28-34 present considerable difficulty to the advocates of the theory that there were two cam- paigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. If the second campaign was an outgrowth of a campaign in Arabia, Isaiah’s description of the Assyrian advance could neither be a description post eventum, nor an imaginary anticipation. If it is conceded that x 28-34 was an oracle delivered during the first campaign, then there is no room for the theory that all the anti-Assyrian oracles belong to the second, and that during the first, Isaiah was consistently pro- Assyrian. On the other hand, if the concession is not made, the northern route is a challenge, which demands explanation. The problem does not exist for those who favor the view discussed above, that Isaiah is not referring to the Assyrians, but to the Syrians and Ephraimites. The difficulty also disappears for those who accept the radical suggestion put forth by Gray. Gray sepa- rates vv. 33 and 34 from 28-32. Asa result, vv. 28-32 ceases to be a part of an anti-Assyrian oracle. Instead of the usual assumption, that the prophet is trying to show how Assyria will be foiled at the last moment, when it is almost within reach of the coveted prize, in accordance with Gray’s analysis of the oracle into two separate, distinct parts, it becomes possible to assume that Isaiah is interested in describing the rapidity with which Assyria will accomplish its purpose, or else to arouse his countrymen to a sense of the immediacy of the danger. In either case, the oracle belongs to the period when Isaiah still had confidence in the power of Assyria, and was anticipating a successful suppression of the rebellion. 2. XIV 24-27 Some scholars believe that this is a misplaced fragment, that it was originally part of x 5-34. Those who regard x 5-34 as a series of related oracles, would be inclined to regard this as another independent oracle delivered during the same period, as the oracles contained in x 5-34. Regardless of any theory one may accept concerning the relation of this oracle to x 5-19 (or x 5-34), it must be admitted that this oracle was. delivered at some time subsequent to Isaiah’s decision, that Assyria would receive 94 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine Divine punishment for its transgressions. In this oracle, the anti- Assyrian view is expressed in clear and unmistakable terms. The most important element in this prophecy is the explicit reference to Judah, as the place where Assyria would meet its doom. The most natural explanation for the prophet’s assumption, that Zion would be chosen by the Lord for the consummation of His Plan, is that the prophet believed, that if the Assyrian catas- trophe occurred in Judah, it would be most manifest to all the nations of the world, that this catastrophe had come as a result of the will of the Lord, the God of Judah. “The purpose, which the Lord has purposed”, (v. 26 & 27) may be construed as referring to the breaking of the strong and arrogant Assyria as a demon- stration to mankind of the Divine role in human history. The above explanation presupposes a priori reasoning, a sub- jective desire as the basis of Isaiah’s conviction, that the visitation of Judgment upon Assyria would take place in Judah. If we assume that Isaiah reached his conclusion empirically, that this oracle represents a rationalization of experience, then we must place upon this oracle a somewhat different construction. If this oracle was delivered during the late stages of Senna- cherib’s campaign, at the time when Sennacherib’s army was devas- tating the entire country, then the emphasis upon the hills of Judah, as the place where the Assyrian would meet his doom, may have represented an attempt, on the part of the prophet, to console his discouraged compatriots. If [fsaiah had previously delivered a number of anti-Assyrian oracles,” as a result of which the people had been expecting for some time a miraculous manifestation of Divine power, the capture of Lachish, the blockade of Jerusalem, the despoliation of the entire country, must have been very dis- heartening to the people of Judah. The promise of a deliverance must have appeared to them as a vain promise, and there was probably little hope of escaping the fate of the allied Philistine cities. Under such circumstances, it would have been very natural for the prophet, confident that he had properly understood the Divine plan of History, and still convinced that the fate he had predicted for the Assyrians would overtake them, to stress the hills of Judah as the place where the Assyrian judgment would take place, in order to indicate that that which is happening to A Critical Source Study 95 Judah is not contrary to the Divine plan, but rather a part of the plan—a prelude to the great event. In other words, it may be argued, that the “purpose, which the Lord has purposed’, is a two fold one,—that it refers to the punishment of Judah, as well as of Assyria,—that the reason why Assyria shall be broken in the land of Judah, is in order to bring about the realization of the first before the second. This interpretation might be favored by those, who believe that some of the minatory prophecies were delivered at the same time as the anti-Assyrian. There is no intimation, however, that the “pur- pose” is intended to imply a double signification; consequently, no one can contend, that this oracle supports that view in any way, or presents any special difficulty to those who believe that the prophecies, in which Isaiah predicts the ravaging of Judah, belong to an earlier period than those, in which he predicts an Assyrian catastrophe. 3. XVII 12-14 There is considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars concerning this short oracle. Some do not separate vv. 12f. from the preceding. If so, the people, whose gruesome fate is so vividly described, are the Syrians and Ephraimiies, and this oracle has no bearing on the problem of this study. It is more natural, however, to assume that the reference is to the Assyrian hosts, than to the Syrians and Ephraimites. Among the scholars, who accept the latter view, some are inclined to regard vv. 12ff. as an introduction to CH. Xviil,~ whereas others maintain that xvii 1 is undoubtedly the true beginning of an oracle, and xvi 14 a natural ending, and therefore regard these three verses as an independent oracle, or as a fragment of an independent poem. As for the date of this oracle, there is room for a wide range of difference of opinion. It may be assumed, that Isaiah hears the noise of the Assyrian army in his imagination, while the Assyrian army is still very far off, or else, en route to Palestine. It may also be assumed, that the invading army is already in the land,“ and that Isaiah’s simile is based on the impression, that the Assyrian army made upon him when viewed from close range. It 96 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine may also be assumed, with an equal degree of reasonableness, that this oracle is not a prediction, but a post-eventum comment, in which the prophet portrays, in a few bold strokes, the great contrast in the Assyrian hosts” before and after the terrible catastrophe de- scribed in II Kings x1x 35. To those who accept the last interpre- tation, this oracle would be a confirmation of the historicity of the story of the plague. On the other hand, those scholars, who are not ready to impute any historic value to this story, can point to this passage as the source from which the legend developed.” They can argue that Isaiah’s implication, that the destruction of Assyria would be very sudden (one night), intended for dramatic effect, was taken literally by later generations, and became the basis for the belief, that the Assyrian hosts were annihilated in one night by a terrible plague. We have already seen how such an evolu- tion might have been possible, despite the sufferings which the Judeans endured as a result of Sennacherib’s invasion, if the sudden raising of the siege was regarded at the time, as a vindication of the prophet, who, throughout the crisis, had boldly proclaimed the inviolability of Zion. There is a school of Bible students, who regard all literal fulfillments of prophetic predictions with suspicion. They believe that either the predictions have been tampered with, in order to make them conform with the course of events, or vice-versa. It is important to note that the prediction in this oracle is very vague, and that the relation between the prediction and the story of the plague is implicit, rather than explicit.” 4. CHAPTER XVIII This prophecy does not contain any direct allusions,” conse- quently, its meaning is not clear. The most common assumption in regard to the background of this prophecy is that Isaiah is ad- dressing Ethiopian” ambassadors, who have come to Jerusalem, in order to proffer assistance to Hezekiah, in his struggle against Assyria. Isaiah respectfully declines this offer, because human assistance is not needed. Judah is about to receive Divine assist- ance. The inhabitants of the entire world” are called upon to witness the spectacle, when the mighty, seemingly invincible Assyria will fall, through Divine intervention.” A Critical Source Study 97 In accordance with the above interpretation, Isaiah stresses in this prophecy the same thought, as he does in the anti-Egyptian o1acles considered previously, viz., the futility of reliance upon human assistance. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference in his attitude towards Ethiopa and Egypt. In the one case, his tone is respectful; and in the other, contemptuous. It is possible to explain Isaiah’s difference in attitude by assuming that the anti- Egyptian oracles were delivered some time prior to the Ethiopian conquest of Egypt, during the period of Egypt’s weakness under the rule of the Delta dynasts, and that this prophecy was de- livered some time after that event. If we accept Breasted’s date for the accession of Shabaka (712), then Isaiah’s attitude during the revolt of Ashdod (711) as revealed in CHAPTER xx, does not conform with the view that Isaiah’s attitude towards the Nile coun- try changed as a result of Shabaka’s conquest. The last objection can easily be met by the assumption that the change of attitude did not take place at the beginning of Shabaka’s reign, but some- time during the reign. Isaiah may have remembered the conquests of Piankhi and his failure to maintain his control of either lower or upper Egypt, after his retirement to his own capital, Napata, near the fourth cataract; and as a result, have anticipated during the early years of Shabaka’s rule, a similar collapse of the cen- tralized government, and a return to the division of authority between rival struggling dynasts. Those scholars, who believe that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine, are inclined to place some of the oracles stressing Egypt’s weakness as late as 705-702 and to assume that this prophecy was delivered during the reign of the powerful Tirhakah (694-667 or 689-662). Is it possible to determine the most probable date for the delivery of this prophecy, on the basis of internal evidence? Is Isaiah addressing an imaginary embassy, or is he dealing with a real historic situation? In favor of the former view, it may be argued, that had Isaiah been addressing his remarks to foreign ambassadors, he would have made specific mention of his declining the prof- fered assistance, and he would have described his reasons for doing so more explicitly. Since [Isaiah was not an official spokes- man for Hezekiah, it was not his business to accept or to decline. Consequently, his remarks to the ambassadors may be construed 98 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine as advisory suggestions to King Hezekiah, and to the Judean officials. Such suggestions, however, necessitate the presupposition, that there were Ethiopian ambassadors in Jerusalem at the time that this prophecy was delivered. If so, what assumption can be made concerning the occasion, which prompted the sending of an Ethi- opian embassy to Judah? There are several possibilities, in addi- tion to those discussed above. (a.) In 705, the year of Sargon’s death, in order to induce Hezekiah to join the other Palestinian states in a revolt against Assyria. [or those who place the anti-Egyptian oracles contained in CH. XXvil-xxxuI during the reign of Sargon, this answer may be acceptable; but for those, who place some of these oracles in the period during which the plans for the revolt were being made, this answer would imply that cH. xvilt and these oracles were synchronous. It has already been noted above, that there is a very decided difference in the tone, in accordance with which the Nile country is alluded to—consequently, it is dificult to believe that cH. xvii and the anti-Egyptian oracles found in Chapters XXVII-XXX11I were delivered during the same period. (b.) After Sennacherib’s campaign in the West had started, but during a very early stage, while Sennacherib was still in Syria or Northern Palestine. In accordance with this assumption, the purpose of the embassy was to promise aid. Many scholars favor this view, because the calm tone of the prophet, and the lack of passionate indignation, which marks so many of his other utter- ances during the crisis, seem to imply that this prophecy was delivered at a time, when there was no imminent danger, long before the tramp of the Assyrian hosts had been heard in Judah. Nevertheless, in this oracle, we see the prophet already fully con- vinced of the ultimate outcome of the invasion. Is it safe, on the basis of the above assumptions, to decide that Isaiah reached the conclusion expressed in his anti-Assyrian oracles, some time before the Assyrian invasion of Palestine, or else, during a very early stage of that invasion, long before the blockade of Jerusalem? Those who favor this view, can present a different explanation than that suggested above, for the respectful references to the country from which the ambassadors came, so markedly different from the contemptuous allusions to the Nile country in the anti- A Critical Source Study 99 Egyptian oracles. They can argue, that in the anti-Egyptian oracles, Isaiah was trying to dissuade his countrymen from revolting; that Isaiah knew that the war party based their hopes for success upon the assistance they would receive from Egypt, and that therefore, the most effective counter-argument he could give to the war party was to stress the weakness and impotence of Egypt. The mission of the Ethiopian ambassadors, on the other hand, was not to stimu- late revolt,—the revolt, in accordance with this hypothesis, was already an accomplished fact; their purpose was benevolent, to promise Hezekiah assistance in his hour of need; there was no reason, at this time, for Isaiah to be indignant or scornful. He was ready to decline the Ethiopian offer, not because of any ob- jection to the Ethiopian attitude, but because he regarded all human assistance as superfluous. (“Asshur would fall with the sword, but not of man”;) there was no reason, therefore, why the Ethi- opians should not be addressed in diplomatic, courteous language. (c) After the battle of Eltekeh. Most scholars refuse to en- tertain this answer as a possibility. Nevertheless, this answer is by no means, an impossible one. For those scholars, who believe that at Eltekeh, Sennacherib met only a small contingent of Egyptian and Ethiopian troops, and that upon the approach of a new Ethiopian army, under the leadership of Tirhakah the nephew of the King Shabaka, Sennacherib retreated, it would be a confirmation of the correctness of their interpretation, if it could be proven that, after the battle of Eltekeh, Shabaka sent ambas- sadors to Hezekiah, informing him that he was sending a second army to his assistance. If CH. xviii is a prophecy uttered after the defeat of the Allies at Eltekeh, the calm tone of the prophet is quite remarkable, and represents an eloquent testimony to the intensity of his faith in his own reading of the Divine Plan of History. It is very largely on account of this tone, and because of the absence of any indication that Judah was facing a crisis, that most scholars regard the supposition that the Ethiopian em- bassy was sent after the battle of Eltekeh, as an untenable one. If we accept the second answer, and if we interpret the figures in vv. 4-6 to mean that before the Lord will carry out His design upon the Assyrian army, He will calmly look on and allow Assyria to carry out its designs at the expense of the helpless Judeans,” 100 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine then we must conclude that even before the Assyrian devastation of Judah began, Isaiah already anticipated a period of intense suffering for Judah, and had predicted that the Assyrian disaster would come at the height of the Judean crisis, at the very last moment, when all hope of deliverance had been given up. In accordance with this interpretation, it is not necessary to postulate that at one time Isaiah was pro-Assyrian, and at another time anti-Assyrian. It is very possible, that to Isaiah, these two groups of prophecies were not contradictory, but supplementary. The suffering of the Judeans at the hands of the Assyrians, was as necessary a part of the Divine scheme, as the ultimate frustration of the Assyrian design to annihilate the Judean state. We may assume, that during the early stages of his career, he interpreted the Assyrian advance, as a means that God had chosen to punish sinful peoples; that after a time, he became convinced that Assyria too is responsible to God and that its day of Judgment is bound to come; that when he began to feel that that day was drawing near, he made that thought central in his prophecies, but that he did not deviate from the central thought of his earlier prophecies, viz., that Judah must go through the crucible of suffering, in orde1 that there may evolve a Holy Remnant. Accordingly, there is no stage of Isaiah’s career, at which it is possible to say, “He is no longer troubled by doubts of his people’s moral condition.” Those scholars, who are unwilling to accept the above conclusion, do not need to accept the premises upon which it is based. In fact, by starting out with the premise, that the anti-Assyrian point of view developed during the crisis, they would conclude, that this oracle could not have been delivered before the danger was imminent. The calm tone they would explain by the intensity of the prophet’s conviction concerning the ultimate outcome of the crisis. The simile, implying that the expected doom to Assyria would take place at the very last moment, they would explain as an attempt on the part of Isaiah to harmonise his prediction concerning the ultimate outcome with existing conditions. We are thus once more confronted with a vicious circle. — a A Critical Source Study 101 C. MISCELLANEOUS PROPHECIES®* 1. XXIII 1-14. AN ORACLE ON THE DESTRUCTION OF TYRE. If it could be proved that this prophecy was delivered in 701, while Sennacherib was engaged in suppressing the revolt in Phoeni- cia, then this prophecy would become a very important source for the reconstruction of the story of Sennacherib’s campaign in Syria and Palestine. It would help to confirm the suspicion ex- pressed in the first chapter of this study, that the failure of the Assyrian annalist to mention Tyre was deliberate, in order to avoid the inclusion of an unfavorable element in his account—the story of an unsuccessful siege. If we regard xxmi 1-14, as a prophecy delivered during the campaign, we must presuppose a siege of Tyre. It is not possible to assume that Isaiah pictured, in his imagination, the complete destruction of the joyous city, before an attempt was made to capture the city. This, in turn, would tend to strengthen the belief that the Assyrian annalist did not describe the events connected with the campaign in Judah in their proper sequence, in order to avoid revealing the true cause of the difference in treatment accorded to Hezekiah and the leaders of the anti- Assyrian party in the Philistine cities. It is not possible, however, to present any convincing evidence, in support of the supposition, that this prophecy belongs to the period with which this study is concerned. The historic allusions are very vague; there is, consequently, room for many different theories concerning the probable background of this prophecy. Some scholars, in trying to determine the historic circumstances which called forth this prophecy, limit themselves to possible situations within the life-time of Isaiah. Other scholars see no reason for such limitation. The linguistic evidence does not favor one view or the other—the style and choice of words are not sufficiently characteristic of Isaiah to indicate clearly that the oracle is Isianic, nor are they sufficiently different from the Isianic, to make it necessary to assume that they are not Isianic. If this prophecy represents a lyrica] reaction of the prophet post eventum, it must be a very late prophecy, because Alexander was the first to capture Tyre. Duhm and Marti assume that the 102 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine original poem dealt with the destruction of Sidon, and that through an error of a late supplementer, it was mistaken for an oracle on Tyre. Accordingly, they assume that the background of this prophecy is the frightful chastisement inflicted upon Phoenicia by Artaxerxes Ochus, as a result of which Sidon was almost destroyed. If this prophecy is interpreted as an anticipatory prediction, which was not realized, it may have been composed during Nebuchad- nezzar’s thirteen year siege of Tyre (585-573), during the same period that Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning Tyre were composed ;” or, during the reign of Shalmeneser, who, according to Josephus, (quoting Menander whose history, Josephus claims, was based on the archives of Tyre) besieged Tyre for five years; or in 701, during Sennacherib’s invasion of Phoenicia. If any one but the last hypothesis is correct, this oracle has no bearing on the prob- lems involved in this study. Those scholars, who believe that this oracle is Isianic, must necessarily limit themselves to the last two suppositions. Many scholars are skeptical concerning the correctness of the assertion that Shalmeneser besieged Tyre. They believe that there is a con- fusion of the text concerning the name of the Assyrian king, and that it is very possible, that the king originally referred to in the Tyrian source, upon which Menander based his account, was Senna- cherib. But there is nothing to back up this assumption, and therefore we cannot build upon it. The fact that there is nothing in the Assyrian sources to indicate that there was an invasion of Phoenicia during the reign of Shalmeneser proves nothing, since no inscriptions from the reign of Shalmeneser have come down to us. 7 SAT ae An INVECTIVE AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER The source value of this oracle consists in the fact that it indicates that some time before Rabshakeh’s demand for the sur- render of Jerusalem, there occurred a change in Hezekiah’s cabinet. During the negotiations with Rabshakeh, Shebna occupies a sec- ondary position; the most important position is held by Eliakim. At the time that this prohecy was delivered, Shebna was the prime A Critical Source Study 103 minister, and Isaiah was looking forward to Shebna’s being deposed and replaced by Eliakim. Isaiah’s vehement invectives against Shebna and lavish praise of Eliakim, have been used as a basis for the inference, that the former was the leader of the pro-Egyptian party, whom the prophet denounces so bitterly in the anti-Egyptian oracles, and the latter the leader of the opposing party. Accordingly, special significance must be attached to the change in Hezekiah’s cabinet; it must be interpreted as a reversal of policy. It would have been very natural, after the defeat of the allies at Eltekeh, at the time when the entire country was being devastated by the Assyrians, to depose the minister,” whose policy had brought about the calamity and to set up in his place the leader of the party that had counselled against the rebellion. For those scholars, who believe that Isaiah experienced a change in attitude some time during the Assyrian crisis, this hypothesis suggests a likely moment for such a change. While Shebna and the pro-Egyptian party were in power, it was necessary for Isaiah to picture, in darkest terms, the outcome of the policy of the party in power, but when that party was discredited, and a change of administration had taken place, and one whom Isaiah favored had been appointed Prime Minister, there was no longer any need of denunciations and it was possible for him to direct his attention to the place of Assyria in the Providential scheme of history, and to its ultimate fate. It is interesting to note, in connection with the above hypothesis, that in this invective against Shebna, there is not the slightest refer- ence to a pro-EKgyptian policy, or to an effort to foment rebellion against Assyria. The only stated offense is his building for him- self a large sepulchre. Since this offense would hardly have merited such terrible invective, it may be assumed, that this was merely the occasion, that the real offense was the suicidal policy, which he had caused the nation to adopt. It is possible, that an intrigue with Egypt would have merited in the prophet’s eyes such an epithet as, “Thou shame of thy lord’s house,”—but it is quite a different matter to assert, that this epithet referred to such an in- trigue. In fact, if it did, it is hard to account for the fact that Isaiah made no specific reference. 104 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 3. XXII 1-15 A REBUKE TO THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM There is a wide divergence of opinion amongst scholars con- cerning this oracle. Interpreters have come to different conclusions, because some believe it to be a literary unit, whereas others main- tain that it contains extraneous elements, which represent interpola- tions of later writers; and still others assume that it consists of two independent poems. Difference in interpretation is also due to the fact that some scholars attribute a future sense to the verbs in vv. 2b, 3, 6 and 7, and therefore regard the oracle as a prediction; whereas others think that these verbs are historical references to events that had already taken place. A third reason for disagree- ment among scholars concerning the construction to be put upon this oracle, is the fact that the oracle does not contain any clues, which indicate the circumstances prevailing at the time of its de- livery. All that can be definitely inferred, is that the people of Jerusalem were engaged in a joyous celebration, of which the prophet did not approve. What was the occasion for the outburst of joy on the part of the populace? Why did not the prophet share the mood of the people? Why did the prophet regard the feasting and revelry ill- timed? Why was he provoked by the joy and mirth of the inhabi- tants of Jerusalem? Why should rejoicing be regarded as a serious transgression, meriting the punishment of death? To none of these questions can a definite answer be given, and if we resort to as- sumptions, a number of answers are possible. (a.) It is possible to assume, that the celebration marked the consummation of the plans for revolt. V.1" seems to indicate that the peopie had gone up on their housetops, in order to witness a spectacle.” It is very possible that the spectacle in which the people were interested, was the bringing into Jerusalem, as a prisoner, Padi, the deposed King of Ekron, who had refused to join the coalition against Assyria. If we assume that the decision to revolt was accompanied by great rejoicing and joyous celebra- tions, then we must conclude that the people were confident, that their undertaking would be crowned with success, that the deter- mination to break the Assyrian yoke was regarded as a fait A Critical Source Study 105 accomplis. The anguish of the prophet on the other hand would indicate, that he did not share the optimism of the people round about him; that he anticipated quite a different outcome of events. If vv. 2b, 3, 5ff. are taken as predictions, then the forebodings of the prophet were indeed dark. From the point of view of the problems considered in this study, the extreme form of the pun- ishment threatened in v. 14 is of special significance. The difficulty with this interpretation is that vv. 9-11 seem to imply that shortly before this occasion, there was a panic in Jeru- salem, and last minute defence had to be resorted to, in order to protect Jerusalem from a siege. Those scholars, who assume that these prose verses were not a part of the original prophecy, but that they were interpolated by a later writer, escape this difficulty. (b.) Another possible assumption is that the celebration took place shortly before the battle of Eltekeh, when the news reached Jerusalem, that the long expected Egyptian troops had arrived. If there was any possibility of catching a glimpse of the advancing Egyptian army, it would have been very natural for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to ascend to their housetops, in order to view the reinforcements, upon which they had based all their hopes. The contrast between the mood of the prophet and that of the people, in accordance with this hypothesis, must have been caused by their respective attitudes towards Egypt. The prophet had no faith in Egypt. He, therefore, could not share the popular assurance of success. He intuitively felt that the Egyptian reinforcements would not make it possible for the Palestinian allies to drive back the Assyrian hosts. As in the case of the former hypothesis, it is necessary to assume that vv. 2b, 3, 5 ff. are predictions, forebodings of the suffering that the people of Judah would soon undergo. If we accept this hypothesis, then we must assume a late date for the recognition, on the part of Isaiah, that Assyria too is vulnerable, and that she would be subjected to Divine punishment. (c.) A third possibility is that the outburst of joy was caused by the news that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute, and to end the blockade of Jerusalem. The news probably reached Jeru- salem at a time when all thought of successful resistance to Assyria had been given up; when the people were momentarily expecting a fate similar to that of Samaria twenty years earlier. The Judeans 106 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine had probably not expected that Sennacherib would allow them to buy the security of Jerusalem; they had probably heard of Senna- cherib’s cruel treatment of Ashkalon and the pro-Egyptian party in Ekron; and they knew that Sennacherib had special reason for wreaking vengeance on Judah, because Hezekiah had played a lead- ing role in fomenting the revolt. Consequently, the news that Sen- nacherib, contrary to expectation, had agreed to accept tribute, would have very naturally occasioned an outburst of joy.” The implication of vv. 2b and 3, in accordance with this hypothesis, is clear.” The prophet is trying to remind the celebrants that they have not come together to celebrate heroic deeds. He is calling their attention to the ignominious conduct of the Judean soldiery on the field of battle. What is not clear, however, is the reason for the prophet’s pessimism. Is it probable that the prophet realized that the relief afforded by the raising of the blockade was a temp- orary one, and that the danger which the people had sensed but a short time earlier was not yet over? How can such premonition be accounted for?” (d.) Another possible interpretation is that the occasion for rejoicing was the final retreat of the Assyrian army. In accordance with this view, the mad exaltation of the people is clear,” and the contrasting reaction of the prophet is equally clear, if we keep in mind the prophet’s interpretation of History. The course of events had proven the inability of the Allies as well as of Egypt to cope with Assyria. To the prophet, it was clear that the Assyrian dis- aster had not been brought about by human effort, but through the intervention of God. Consequently, he expected that the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem would have a sobering effect upon the peo- ple: therefore, when instead of a spiritual regeneration, he witnessed mad scenes of revelling and rejoicing, he was greatly disappointed. And instead of the comforting speeches he had given during the period of crisis, he now uttered dark forebodings of a crisis even greater than the preceding. The last hypothesis has a great deal in its favor. All the elements of the prophecy, excepting 13d, harmonize with that construction. Accordingly the spectacle, which the people had gone up to see, was the northward march of the disorganized remnants of the once powerful Assyrian army. The joy of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, A Critical Source Study 107 upon the sudden release of the Assyrian stranglehold, can easily be imagined. It has already been indicated that the anguish of the prophet, who had anticipated for so long a time, that out of the crucible of suffering there would emerge a spiritually changed people, a holy remnant, was a most natural reaction to the ex- uberance of the people about him, whose conduct did not indicate any trace of appreciation of the spiritual significance of the events that had transpired. The contemptuous reference to the fate of the Judean soldiery during the crisis, is very much in place. The prophet is interested in emphasizing the thought that they can not attribute the deliverance of the city to their own efforts. There is also a logical reason for including the description of the mad efforts to prepare the city for a siege. The prophet wants to compare their failure to trust in Divine assistance, and their reliance upon vain human efforts at the time that the danger was imminent, with their failure to recognize after the danger was over the role that their God had played during the crisis. The second failure is in the eyes of the prophet a more serious offense than the first. Revelry and feasting in place of penitence and contrition of heart is an iniquity which death alone can expiate. If it were possible to prove that this hypothesis is correct, then this prophecy would become a very important source, and only such theories concerning the attitude of the prophet before and during the crisis would become acceptable, as harmonize with the attitude of the prophet after the crisis, that this hypothesis implies. This, however, is not the case. (e) It has been pointed out above, that it is not easy to harmon- ize 13d with the last hypothesis. In fact, it is not easy to reconcile 13d with any of the hypotheses suggested above. If we take 13d as a starting point, we might conclude that this prophecy was de- livered during the blockade, during those dark moments, when it seemed that Jerusalem was nearing its end, when all hope of de- liverance had been given up. Accordingly, the revelry and feasting were not indulged in because of a joyous situation, but rather be- cause of reckless desperation—complete abandonment before the grand finale. Such an attitude would have undoubtedly surprised the prophet and called forth his severest censures. To the prophet, who believed that human events were controlled by the Divine Will, 108 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine there was a way of avoiding the seemingly inevitable crash, and that was, repentance, sincere determination to accept the Divine standards in human conduct. Accordingly, there could have been ne greater folly than the attitude implied in the words mio. amp 1D nw 5398 Such folly must necessarily result in the punishment it merits-——-death. It is hard to reconcile 11b and c with this construction. There are other difficulties; nevertheless, this view is not an impossible one. (f) If we separate 12ff. from the preceding and regard it as an independent poem, it is possible to accept any one of the above hypotheses concerning the first oracle and hypohtesis e in regard to 12ff. f If we accept the fifth hypothesis, and if we also assume that Isaiah’s warning was heeded, that the mad revelling was stopped and replaced by a true penitence, such as is indicated by the attitude of Hezekiah upon the receipt of Sennacherib’s letter, then we may further assume that the change in Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria took place during those bitter moments when all hope of saving Jerusalem had been given up, simultaneously with a psychological change on the part of the entire population. All the five hypotheses mentioned above, take for granted that xx11 1-15 belongs to the period in which Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah took place. There is no reason for doing so.” It is possible that during some other period of the prophet’s career, the inhabitants of Jerusalem indulged in a celebration, of which the prophet did not approve. If so, this oracle has no bearing on the problems considered in this study. APE A07.0 A DESCRIPTION OF THE DESOLATION OF JUDAH These verses are undoubtedly a contemporary reference to the devastation of Judah, as a result of a foreign invasion. There is no reference to the enemy by name, consequently, there is no way of determining definitely, to what enemy Isaiah is referring. The description of the conditions in Judah is very suitable for the period during which Sennacherib ravaged the entire country, and it is very tempting to assume that the oracle of which these verses are a part, was delivered during or shortly after Sennacherib’s invasion. A Critical Source Study 109 Some scholars believe that the first chapter is a prophecy or a series of prophecies delivered during the early part of Isaiah's career, shortly after his call. They, therefore, assume that the enemy who had devastated the country are the Syrians and Ephraim- ites during the Syro-Ephraimitic War. The chief objection to this theory is the word oy . It is not likely that Isaiah would have used the word 4; when referring to Judah’s sister kingdom. The force of this objection is strong, nevertheless, at the time that the entire country of Judah was in ruins, because of the havoc and destruction of the invading armies of Israel] and Syria, it would not have been impossible to refer to them as “foreigners who are devouring the. land.” Most scholars believe that this phrase is much more appropriate as a reference to the Assyrians and are inclined to favor the former view. It is not necessary to assume an early date for Chapter I (“The Great Arraignment”), because of its position. The fact that Chapter II has an independent superscription indicates that Chapter I may have circulated for a time as an independent fly-leaf. When this fly-leaf was brought together with the other collections of Isianic prophecies to form one collection (CH. I-x11) it was probably placed by the editor as the opening chapter, because of its general character, and because it serves so well as an introduction to the ideas which are characteristic of Isaiah, and to the point of view which motivated him during his entire career. Some scholars have tried to prove an early date for CH. 1 on the basis of internal evidence. The arguments presented are vague and unconvincing. Moreover, it is not possible to draw inferences concerning the date of one part of the chapter from evidence based on another part, because both were not necessarily delivered at the game time. There are some scholars, who regard the entire chapter as an oratorical unit, but most scholars believe that it contains summaries of oracles delivered at different times. Skinner suggests that these oracles were probably delivered during one period of the prophet’s career. That may be, but there is no reason for assuming that it is necessarily so. From the above analysis, it appears, that it is very probable that vv. 7-9 represent the description of an eye-witness of conditions in Judah caused by the events referred to in II K xvm 13. If 110 ~ Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine so, the vivid description of the extremities to which Judah was reduced, form an important supplement to the matter-of-fact state- ment taken from the royal annals. Furthermore, the correspond- ence between the picture presented by these verses, and that implied by the Assyrian sources, tends to confirm the historicity of the Assyrian sources. It is important to remember, however, that all conclusions based on these verses are based on an assumption. Notes to Chapter III 111 1] have not given any title to this collection of prophecies, because it is difficult to do so. The dominant motif is the denunciation of the Egyptian Alliance, but it contains also anti-Assyrian elements, as well as oracles that are not specifically related to the political situation in Western Asia and Egypt during the second half of the 8th Century B.C.E. I deemed it advisable, however, to treat these chapters as one unit. 2Prism fragment of Sargon (Sm. 2022) lines 29-35, discovered by G. Smith— Discoveries, pp. 288ff. Published by Winckler. K. S. II pl. 45 b. Transcribed and translated v. I pp. 188 and 189. See Jirku’s Comment to II K XVIII, 1-8 (p. 175). Of special interest is the phrase used in referring to the Pharoah “‘malku la musezi- bisunu”’ (a king who could not help them) cf. I XXX 5. %Isaiah’s warning to the Philistines (XIV 28-32) may have been motivated by the desire to prevent that change of policy from taking place. This does not imrply that these scholars do not recognize that these chapters contain a great deal of unrelated material. There is no doubt that in their present form, these chapters contain extraneous material, which was not present in the original collection. 5 See note above concerning extraneous material now part of Ch. XXVIII- XXXIII, which may not have been present in the original collection prepared by Isaiah’s disciples. oT. AKA/E. 7 Ewald regards XXVIII 1—XXX 7 as one oration (pause before XXIX 1). and XXXII 8—XXXII 20 as a supplement written in retirement. 8 These scholars do not deny that these chapters represent a literary unit; i. e. that they constituted an independent collection before they were incorporated into the book of Isaiah. (Ch. I-XXXIX). 8Before the Syro-Ephraimitic Alliance. or after the destruction of Damascus, (otherwise there would have been a reference to the Kingdom of wWamascus) very likely at the time that the Northern Kingdom was preparing to make its fatal plunge. 10Tt is not necessary to assuntre that the prophecy was given twice; it may be assumed instead, that when the prophecies in regard to Hezekiah’s desire to make an alliance with Egypt were first collected and edited, whether by Isaiah or by one of his disciples, these verses were added. The reasons for this inclusion would correspond to the reasons suggested for the assumed repetition. Uf this oracle had been repeated, it might very naturally have been included in a collection of prophecies made during the period when the oracle was delivered the second time. 12 The nature of the prophecy is such, as to make it difficult for those who maintain this view, to suggest a probable date. Some scholars ascribe it to the same period as III 16-IV 1. Other scholars object to the assumption that XXXII 9-14 and III 16 ff. are synchronous. 13 Cf. Isaiah’s attitude 4xpressed in XXII 1-15. Wilke (p. 89) believes that the fierce tone is due to the fact that it was expressed at the height of the crisis. Duhm suggests, on basis of v.29, that this oracle was intended for Isaiah’s disciples. 4% Cf. Staerk pp. 1387. fi. 1 A crucial question. Upon the answer given it, depends in large measure our conception of the personality of the prophet, and his attitude during the critical days of 701. Did Isaiah believe in the inviolability of Zion at all times? Did he ever waver in that belief? cf. XXXII 9-15. 16In order to stress the vicious circle, I have put the proposition rather bluntly. It might have been fairer to say that most scholars can not accept Skinner’s conclusion, because they can not accept his premise. Most scholars’ do not agree that it was “natural’’ for the prophet, even if it be admitted that he was in a semi-ecstatic condition, to have made such an abrupt transition from denunciatory to consolatory prophecy. 112 Notes to Chapter III 17 Staerk separates XXai 4 ff. from XXXI 1-3. Accordingly, he places the former in the same period as XIV 24-27 and XVII 12-14 (the destruction of Assyria, in close relation with the saving of Judah—a sudden crash). Cheyne regards XXXI 5-9 as an independent oracle, and despite the specific mention of “iWN in v.8, he assumes that the reference is to the Syrians. 18 4p as variant gloss to 4a and v. 8 as a variant gloss to v. 7. 19 Vv. 6 and 7% Duhm regards as a non-ISianic insertion, similar in character to XXX 18-26; 8b and 9 not related to 8a. Duhm admits the possibility of v. 4 bdlonging to vv. 1-3, but in that case, the figure has to be understood in an opposite sense. If. v. 4 belongs to the preceding, Duhm believes there is a gap between v.3 and 4. Furthermore, Duhm does not believe 4b a natural sequel to 4a. From the above analysis, Duhm concludes that the whole chapter is not Isianic, but the work of a redactor, who incorporated genuine Isianic fragments. 207 XXIX 9 ff. is takan as a continuation of XXIX 1-8, the analysis of the latter must indicate a reason for Isaiah’s hearers’ astonishment (v. 9). If we assume that the original oracle was a prediction against Judah, how did Isaiah surprise his hearers? (He himself refers to this monotonous repetition of the same theme (XXVIII 9f.). Is it by announcing that their God, instead of pro- tecting Jerusalem, would fight against ft? 2 .Cheyne’s analysis is similar to Marti’s. He regards XXIX 4b, 5, 7, 8 as non-Isianic. The oracle is limited accordingly to 1-4a, 6, a prediction of a visita- tion of Judgment upon Jerusalem, “‘irremediable ruin to God’s altar city.”” The Isianic part of Ch. XXXI Cheyne limits to 1-4. Vv. 5-9 he regards as a composite of later insertions. He believes that 8b and 9a do not suit context; that vv. 6, 7 are a marginal gloss which resemble XXIX 7, 8. 22It is not necessary to assume that the Revolt was decided upon immediately after the death of Sargon, (although the death of Sargon would have furnished a logical occasion for revolt). If it is assumed that the instigation for revolt came through Merodach Balladin (accordingly the embassy must have been sent during Morodach Balladin’s second reign, 702) then this oracle (interpreted as a synthesis of an anti-Judah and an anti-Assyria prediction) may have been de- livered between 705 and 702. 23The implication of the phrase MIpy mano wh can only be either to bring battle to the gate of the enemy, of else to drive out the invader and pursue to the gate. Skinner, who believes that vv.4 and 6 may be Isianic, admits that this phrase would have been ‘‘remarkable” for Isaiah. *1f so, XXIX 20 must refer to Sennacherib. 2 Cf. XXII 1-14, and the interpretation thereof (p. 105f.). 7% Accordingly, all the anti-Assyrian oracles must be placed after the timre when Hezekiah had agreed to pay tribute. This hypothesis, therefore, can not be enter- tained by anyone who assigns any anti-Assyrian oracles to an earlier period. See discussion of X 5-84. 2? Some scholars do not place this prophecy in quite so late a period. They assume that the tyrant referred to is one of the Persian Kings. The historic allusions are so vague that it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion, one way or another. Skinner uses this vagueness as an additional argument in support of the contention that this chapter is not Isianic. Skinner maintains that during the latter part of his career, Isaiah is quite explicit in his references to Assyria. *8In this group of prophecies, I have included the following: X5-34; XIV 24-27; XVII 12-14 and Ch. XVIII. The anti-Assyrian oracles contained in Chapters XAXVITI-XXXIII (XXIX 5?ff.; XXX 27-38; XXXI 4f.; XXXI 8f.; XXXIII?) have been discussed previously. I have not included IX 1-6 because it is difficult to establish the hypothesis suggested by Duhm, Wilke and Staerk that this oracle belongs to the period of Sennacherib’s invasion. There are a number of elements in this prophecy, which it would be difficult to harmonize with the known circumstances of that period. Notes to Chapter III 113 The hypothesis of Kittel that this oracle belongs to the time when the Syro- Ephraimitic Invasion took place, is easier to defend. If this oracle is not Isianic, it surely has no bearing on our problem. Many scholars have declared it un-Isianic, but no one has been able to adequately support his contention that it is so, either on the ground of language, or ideology, or historic background. Of the views presented by these scholars, the most likely are that the author was a contemporary of Deutero-Isaiah, who was looking forward to the ending of the exile (Gray) or a contenrporary of Haggai and Zechariah, who was anticipating a Messiah of the Davidic house. Staerk is probably correct in declaring it Isianic and placing it in the same period as If 2-4** XI" 1-9eand. XAXAILI 1-5 “and 316-20. Staerk includes among the anti-Assyrian oracles XIV 4b-21. The prevailing opinion among scholars is that the tyrant referred to is Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus, or a personification of Babylon. If this prophecy is regarded as Isianic, then it must be assumed that the superscription 4a is an error, and that the tyrant referred to is either Sargon or Sennacherib (or a personification of Assyria). If it could be proved that this elegy was comrposed by Isaiah in 705, the year of Sargon’s death, then this prophecy would become an important source for the determination of the historic background underlying other prophecies of Isaiah, because it would indicate that Isaiah had reached his anti-Assyrian conclusions as early as 705. On the other hand, if it could be proved that this elegy was composed by Isaiah as late as 682, the year of Sennacherib’s death, it would serve as a refutation of the argument presented by the opponents of the theory that there were two campaigns, viz. that c.690, the time when the second campaign is supposed to have taken place, Isaiah was too old to take an active part in public affairs. (Isaiah began his prophetic career c.740; he was therefore about seventy c.690 and about eighty in 682. It is not probable, although not impossible, that Isaiah was active at such an advanced age). If the prophecy was not delivered post-eventum, but represents an antici- patory elegy, or if, as Staerk (p. 144 ff.) suggests, (cf. discussion of XXX 27-38 and XXXVII 22-29) this elegy was comrposed by a disciple of Isaiah, no inferences can be drawn on the basis of this oracle. There is also difference of opinion among scholars concerning the division. Some follow Ewald and divide it as follows: 5-15; 16-28; 24-84; others divide it as follows: 5-19; 20-23; 24-27; 28-34. The latter division is accepted by most modern scholars. Many scholars maintain that X 5-34 contains oracles, which are not Isianic. Cheyne I B.I v. II (pp. 48-57), recognizes as Isianic only parts of the first oracle, vv. 5-9, 13-14; and part of the third oracle (24-34). He regards the second as Post-Exilic and the greater portions of the third (24-84) as editorial work. % Another possible explanation of the vividness of the route described, is that it refers to an otherwise unknown expedition of Sargon. The chief difficulty with this view is that in both Assyrian and Hebrew sources, there is no reference to any such advance on the part of Sargon. The theory advocated by Kleinert (1877) and by Sayce (1886) that II K XVIII 18-16 refers to a campaign of Sargon is not seriously considered by any of the modern scholars. “ Wilke believes that X 28-34 represents Isaiah’s earliest anti-Assyrian prophecy. He assumes that the anti-Assyrian oracles were delivered in the following order: xX. 28-84; (IX 1:53; XVIIT?: XXXVII 33-35, 30-32;) XM 5-19;. XA. 34-37; XXXIII; XIV 24-27, XVII 12-14; XXXI 5-9 (after Rabshakeh’s appeal to the people on the wall); XXX 27-33 (peak of the crisis); XXXVII 22-29. @ XVIII 5, 6; XVII 12-14; XIV 24-27. According to Wilké, the purpose of all three oracles was to free the worried people from fear of the Assyrians and to encourage them to resistance. Dillman, Duhm; cf. Wilke’s interpretation of the passage. 3%414b seems to imply that Judah has already been devastated and laid waste at the time that this oracle was delivered. 114 Notes to Chapter III 8 AID 129 929391 nT. 389 pod ATT... RY? D939 OD TRL ODN (Cf. XXIX 7, 8) Scholars who believe that the allusion in this verse is to Assyria explain XVII 12a as a reference to the heterogeneous composition of the Assyrian army (contingents furnished by the different subject nationalities) Stade (Z.A.T.W. 1883 p. 16) regards this passage as un-Isianic, as belonging to a later period, when it was believed that before the Messianic era would be ushered in, all the nations of the world would be assembled in a vain effort against Jerusalem, and then consumed by Divine Power. (Cf. Joel IV 9ff.; Zech. XII 2ff.) Marti concurs with this view. Ci. LV. 26, 305 XXX ob. % Those who do not believe that this oracle is Isianic, and assign it to a late period, may explain the similarity as a reminiscence of the campaigns of 701. See Stade Z.A.T.W. 1883 p. 16; cf. Marti’s interpretation of this passage. 37 Note the absence of a direct reference to the pestilence in those oracles, which have been declared by scholars as late, composed long after the legend embodied in XXXVII 86 had taken root. 38 Except 1b. This verse does not simplify the problem, but complicates it, for the following reasons: a. Napata, the capital of Ethiopia, _during the 8th century B.C.E., cannot be spoken of as being beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. (The reference is suitable to the island of Meroe, the capital during the 6th Century). b. The reference to rivers presents another difficulty. Up to the sixth cataract, the Nile does not receive any tributaries, hence Ethiopia liké Egypt has only one river. (See following note re Winckler’s ingenious attempt to meet the difficulty presented by this verse and by 2g.) Those scholars who assume that 1b is a gloss derived from Zeph. III. 10 escape the difficulties mentioned. This assumption is challenged by Winckler (A. U. pp. 146-156). He contends that 1b and 2g cannot possibly refer to Ethiopia. He assumes a _ confusion between Kush and Kash (Southern Babylonia), and therefore concludes that the reference is to the swampy district beyond the Babylonian canals, the home of the Chaldeans. Mosquitoes are very abundant in the swamp districts of Southern Babylonia, therefore the epithet 01535 os deh YS (1a) is very suitable. la is also appropriate for parts of Ethiopia. It must be admitted, however, that there is more point to the epithet if the reference is to the Chaldeans. Winckler believes that 2a also supports his theory. He maintains that ©? cannot refer to the Nile, but can refer to the Euphrates. He tries to show that in every passage, where 0’ is assumed to refer to the Nile, the interpretation is faulty. He senses the difficulty presented by NSf22_ (2b), but he does not believe it to be an insurmountable one. He claims that Nf4 need not necessarily imply papyrus (an Egyptian product) but any kind of reed. The assumption that Nf32 does refer to papyrus is supported by references of Greek writers to Egyptians using light boats made out of papyrus, in order to enable them to carry them easily where the river is not navigable. If the meaning of "WII (2d) is “‘tall’’ (a strange word to express this concept, and yet the most logical explanation of the meaning of this word, when applied to persons) and if the most satisfactory explanation of the word W138 (2d) when applied to human beings, is that it refers to a glossy skin, then these epithets are very appropriate for the bronze skinned Ethiopians, whose splendid physique is alluded to by a number of Greek writers. Moreover, the Ethiopians, who succeeded in conquering Egypt, the memory of whose ancient prowess still lingered in the minds of Isaiah’s contemporaries, might have very naturally been referred to as a “terrible people.” In accordance with Winckler’s interpretation, the embassy referred to is the embassy sent by Merodach Balladan described in II K XX. It is important to note, however, that Isaiah’s tone in this chapter is quite diffarent than the Notes to Chapter II] 115 tone used in II K XX. Although it must be admitted that it is not possible to satisfactorily explain 1b and 2g when these verses are assumed to be réferences to Ethiopia, neverthe- less, since all the other allusions are appropriate, and since Winckler’s hypothesis presents new difficulties, most scholars disregard Winckler’s theory and favor the old view viz. that the land apostrophised is Ethiopia and not Southern Babylonia. 49Many scholars regard v. 3a as an interpolation. (v. 7 is also regarded as a late prose addition). 41cf. Duhm’s interpretation of XVIII 5 ff. See note 42 re Marti’s view. 42 Marti assumes that verses 5 and 6 are a continuation of XVII 1-11. Ac- cordingly, the reference is not to the destruction of Assyria, but rather of the Syrians and Ephraimites. If the meaning of V.4 is not altogether clear when taken in conjunction with vv. 5 and 6, the figure becomes even more difficult to explain when v.4 is taken by itself (Cf. Ebrlich ‘JM1WDD Np v. III] p. 39). Ehrlich looks upon this chapter as a collection of prophetic fragments, which have no con- nection between one another. In this group, I have included XXIII 1-14, an oracle on the destruction of Tyre, XXII 15-25, an invective against the prime minister Shebna, XXII 1-14, a rebuke to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and I 7-9, a description of the desolation of Judah. I have not included Ch. XX nor XIV 28-32, although both of these oracles have an important bearing on our problem, because they were not composed during the period with which this study is concerned. The former clearly reveals Isaiah’s attitude in 711 during the revolt of Ashdod and makes it necessary to date accordingly all prophecies in which a different attitude is indicated. The latter oracle not only gives us an insight into Isaiah’s attitude during one of those critical moments, when all Palestine was in a state of ferment and the fate of his own people hung in the balance (either 727, the year that Tuiglath- Piletner died, or 720 after the Assyrian defeat at Dur-ilu) but also furnishes us with a clue for determining the date of the accession of Hezekiah. I have not included a discussion of XXIII 15 ff. or XIX 16-25 because scholars are pretty well agreed that these oracles are not Isianic. I have also not included XIX 1-15, which probably is Isianic, because it does not shed any light on the problems discussed in this study. If XIX 1-15 is Isianic, it probably belongs to an earlier period of the prophet’s career;—possibly, the period following the conquest of Piankhi, when a number of local Delta dynasts tried to assert their independence and were quarrelling with one another. (Breasted, in describing that period, quotes several verses from this oracle. He suggests that no truer picture of that time could possibly be portrayed). If this interpretation is correct, then one deduction of importance can be mrade viz. that the prophet had a very intimate knowledge of conditions in Egypt. If the “fierce” king who shall rule over them’, (v. 4) should not, be interpreted as an Ethiopian conqueror, but as an Assyrian, then the prediction that a series of calamities would befall Egypt, may be regarded as another attempt to emphasize the futility of reliance upon Egypt. Even if such an interpretation is possible, there is no need of regarding XIX 1-15 as a source from which information can be derived concerning Sennacherib’s third campaign. 44In accordance with this hypothesis and the preceding one the reference to the Assyrians (v. 13) is very difficult to explain. No inference can be made, however, on the basis of this reference, because the reference to the Chaldeans is equally dificult. The meaning of the verse is not clear. #Shebna, evidently was not entirely discredited, because he still held office after Eliakim was appointed in his place. Cf. XXXVI 13, 22. 46 Vy, 1b and 2a undoubtedly refer to a contemporary situation. 4TNot necessarily. Going up on the roof may have been a customary feature in a celebration. Cf. Judges XVI 27. 48JI K XVIII 37. harmonizes with this view. It would have been natural for Hezekiah to have become panic stricken, and to have declared the day that the 116 Notes to Chapter III demand was made for the surrender of Jerusalem M383) MOMDIN) AIS OO) if the demand for the surrender of the city came after the people of Jerusalem had been led to believe that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute and to spare the city. 48 In accordance with this view, the spectacle which the Jerusalemites had gone up on their roofs to witness, was the withdrawal of the Assyrian troops, that had been blockading the city. 507f we assume that Isaiah did not trust Sennacherib, that he did not regard the crisis over, when the news reached Jerusalem that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute, then, there is no room for the theory that Isaiah recognized Assyria’s culpability, because of a shock he received when Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. The theory, that Sennacherib’s requst for the surrender of the city was an act of perfidy, is discussed in connection with the analysis of Ch. XXXIII. S1 Particularly so, if we assume that this speech was delivered after the eyents described in II K XIX 35, S27] have not mentioned a hypothesis suggested by Winckler, that the prophet is not referring to the deliverance of Jerusalem from a siege, but to the capture of the Babylonian city of Sippar by the Elamites, because, with all due respect to the ingenious scholar, the theory is far fetched. It is true that the reference to Elam in v. 6 is very puzzling; that the explanation usually given, that the reference is to the heterogeneous elements, of which the Assyrian army was cont posed, is not satisfactory; but, it is not fair, in order to escape a difficulty presented by one verse, to put an unnatural construction on the remaining portion of the text. 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES AND EXCAVATIONS. Hanpcock, P. S. P. HivprecutT, H. V. HitprecuT, H. V. Layarp, A. H. Layarp, A. H. Layarp, A. H. SMITH, GEORGE. ANDRAE, W. Buiss, F. J. AND Dickie, A. C. Buss F. J. MacauisTer, R. A. S. Mesopotamian archaeology. London, 1912. The excavations in Assyria and Babylonia. Philadelphia, 1904. Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th Century. Philadelphia, 1903. Discoveries in the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London, 1853. Nineveh and Babylon. London, 1882. A second series of the monuments of Nineveh. London, 1853. Assyrian discoveries. New York, 1875. Die Festungswerke von Assur. Textband, Tafelband. Leipzig, 1913. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-1897. Lon- don, 1898. Mound of many cities. London, 1898. A century of excavations in Palestine. London, 1925. B. ASSYRIOLOGY AND THE BIBLE. BarTon, G. A. Deuitzscu, F. GRESSMANN, H. JerRemias, A. Jinku, A. Mercer, S. A. B. Pincues, T. G. Rocers, R. W. Sayce, A. H. SCHRADER, E. Archaeology and the Bible. (4th ed.). Philadelphia, 1925. Wo lag das Paradies? Leipzig, 1881. Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testamente. Tubingen, 1909. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. Leipzig, 1904. Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Leipzig, 1923. Extra-Biblical sources for Hebrew and Jewish History. New York, 1913. The Old Testament, in the light of the historical records and legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London, 1903. Cuneiform parallels to the Old Testament. New York, 1912. Fresh light from the ancient monuments. New York, 1895. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Giessen, 1883. 118 SCHRADER, E. The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament, translated from the second enlarged German edition by Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse. London, 1885-88. ZIMMERN, H. AND Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testa- WINCKLER, H. ment. 1903. C. History—-GENERAL WORKS. Cambridge Ancient History, v.3 New York, 1925. Hara Hk: The ancient history of the Near East. (Sth ed.). London, 1920. Maspero, G. C. C. Histoire ancienne des peuples de |’Orient, classique, v.35. Paris, 1899. Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. Stuttgart, 1910-1913. OxmsTeEAbD, A. T. E. History of Assyria. New York, 1923. Raw inson, G. The five great monarchies of the ancient eastern world. London, 1862-1867. Rawtinson, H., Outline of the history of Assyria. London, les: 2ocers, R. W. A history of Babylonia and Assyria. (6th ed.). New York, 1915. TIELE, -C. P. Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte. Gotha, 1886-88. WIncKLER, H. Geschichte Babyloniens und _ Assyriens. Leipzig, 1892. Ewatp, G. H. A. The history of Israel. Translated from the German, edited by R. Martineau, J. E. Carpenter and J. E. Smith. London, 1869-1886. KitTe, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (5th ed.). Gotha, 1922. Kittet, R. A History of the Hebrews, translated by John Taylor. London, 1908. fever, E. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstimme. Halle, 1906. McCurpy, J. F. History, Prophecy and Monuments. New York, 1911. Sein, E. Geschichte des Israelitisch - Juedischen Volkes. Leipzig, 1924. Simcuont, J. N. History of Israel (in Hebrew). Berlin, 1922. Srape, B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Berlin, 1885-1888. WELLHAUSEN, J. BREASTED, J. H. Bunce, E. A. T. W. 119 Israel in Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edi- tion. A History of Egypt. New York, 1924. History of the Egyptian People. London, 1914. D. History—-MoNoGRAPHS. StTaERK, W. OxmstTeEap, A. T. E. OxumsTEaD, A. T. E. WeBER, Orto FULLERTON, K. KLEINERT, P. LANGpoN, S. NAGEL, G. PRASEK, J. V. Driver, S. R. MEINHOLD, J. WILKE, F. BEzo.p, C. Bezo.p, C. Bezo.p, C. Das assyrische Weltreich im Urteil der Propheten. Gottingen, 1908. Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria. New York, 1908. Western Asia in the Days of Sennacherib. Proceedings, Amer. Hist. Ass’n. 1909. pp. 94ff. Sanherib, Koenig von Assyrien 705—681. Leipzig, 1905. The Invasion of Sennacherib. (Bibliotheca Sacra). Oberlin, 1906. Theologische Studien u. Kritiken, 1877. pp. 167-180. Evidence for an advance on Egypt by Sen- nacherib in the campaign of 701-700 mG. eJ.A.0°8., | v.244 pp. 2052274: Der Zug des Sanherib gegen Jerusalem nach den Quellen dargestellt. Leipzig, 1902. Sanherib’s Feldztge gegen Juda. Berlin, 1903. V. G. M. 1903, No. 4. Isaiah: His Life and Times. London, 1908. Die Jesajaerzahlungen. Gottingen, 1898. Jesaja und Assur. Leipzig, 1905. E. ASSYRIAN INSCRIPTIONS. Die Thontafelsammlungen des_ British Museum Sitzungsber. d. Kgl. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1888, pp. 745- 103. Catalogue of the cuneiform tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Mu- seum. London, 1889-99. Kurzgefasster Ueberblick ueber die baby- lonisch-assyrische Literatur. Leipzig, 1886. 120 SCHRADER, E. OtmsteaD, A. T. E. Layarp, H. Raw.inson, H. C. LipzBaRsky, M. MESSERSCHMIDT, L. SCHROEDER, O. Bupce,: BE: As Tu WwW? Lau, R. J. LucKENBILL, D. D. SmiTH, GEORGE. SMITH, GEORGE. SMITH, S. BEzo.p, C. Evetts, B. T. A. Kine, L. W. MEISSNER, B. AND Rost, P. MeENANT, J. Pocnon, H. WINCKLER, H. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Sammlung von assyrischen und_babylonischen Texten in Umschrift und Uebersetzung. Berlin, 1889-1915. Assyrian historiography. Columbia, Mo., 1916. Inscriptions in the cuneiform character, from Assyrian monuments. London, 1851. The cuneiform inscriptions of western Asia. London, 1861-84. Altaramaische Urkunden aus Assur. Leip- zir 71921 (W.V.D.O.G. iy 332) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen In- halts, v.l. Leipzig, 1911. (W.V.D.O.G. v.16.) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen In- halts v.2. Leipzig, 1922. (W.V.D.O.G. v.37.) The history of Essarhaddon. London, 1880. The annals of Ashurbanapal. Leiden, 1903. The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago, 1924. The Assyrian eponym canon. London, n. d. History of Ashurbanipal. London, 1871. The first campaign of Sennacherib. Lon- don, 1921. Inschriften Sanherib’s. Berlin, 1890. (K.B. v.I1, pp. 80-119.) On five unpublished cylinders of Senna- cherib; ZA. v.a, p. 311331. Studies of some rock-sculptures and rock- inscriptions of Western Asia. S.B.A.P. v.30, pp. 66-94. Die Bauinschriften Sanheribs. Leipzig, 1893. Annales des rois d’Assyrie traduites et mises en ordre sur le texte assyrien. Paris, 1874. L’inscription de Bavian. Paris. 1879. De inscriptione Sargonis. Berolini, 1886. F. INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE, PROPHECY AND COMMENTARIES. Cornitiss GH, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Bible, translated from the 5th German edition by G. H. Box. 1907. CorNiL_L, C. H. Driver, S. R. Gray, G. B. KUENEN, A. KUENEN, A. SmitTH, W. R. WELLHAUSEN, J. Barnes, W. E. BENzIGER, I. Burney, C. F. KoTTEL, R. Sanna, A. SKINNER, J. STADE, B. CHEYNE, T. K. CHEYNE, T. K. CHEYNE, T. K. Duum, B. Gorpon, S. L. Gray, G. B. Kraus, S. Martti, K. SKINNER, J. SmitH, G. A. Wane, G. W. 121 The Prophets of Israel. 1595. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York, 1920. A Critical Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York, 1913. Historisch - kritische Einleitung in die Bttcher d. Alten Testaments (Deutsche Ausgabe). Leipzig, 1587. Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. London, 1877. The Prophets of Israel. (2nd edition, 4th printing). London, 1912. Einleitung in das Alte Testament von F. Bleek. (4th ed.). 1878. The Second Book of the Kings. (C.B.). Cambridge, 1911. Die Bticher der Konige. (H.C.). Leipzig u. Tubingen, 18599. Notes on Hebrew Text of Book of Kings. Oxford, 1903. Die Bucher der Konige. (N.H.). 1900. Die Bucher der Konige. Munster in Westf., 1912. I and II Kings. (The Century Bible.) Edinburgh, n. d. Anmerkungen zu II Konige, xv-xx. Z.A.T.W., 1888. pp. 172-183. The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Ar- ranged. 1870. Prophecies of Isaiah. 1880. Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. 1894. Das Buch Jesaja. (G.Hk.). Gottingen, 1922. The Vision of Isaiah, Book One. (In Hebrew.) Warsaw, 1920. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. (1.C.). New York, 1912. The Book of Isaiah. (Cahana’s Commen- tary to the Bible.) Warsaw, n.d. Das Buch Jesaja. (H.C.). 1900. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. (C.B.). Cambridge, 1915. Isaiah in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. The Prophecies of Isaiah. (W.C.). 1911. 122 Curtis, L. AND A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Mapsen, A. A. the books of Chronicles. (I.C.). New York, 1910. Etms ig, W. A. L. The Books of Chronicles. (C.B.). Cam- bridge, 1916. Harvey-JELuiE, W. R. I and II Chronicles. (The Century Bible.) Edinburgh, n. d. KITTEL re Die Bucher der Chronik. (N.H.). 1902. G. MISCELLANEOUS. AUCHINCLoss, W. S. Standard Chronology of the Holy Bible. New York, 1914. Bentwicu, N. Josephus. Philadelphia, 1914. EIseuin, I. C. Sidon. New York, 1907. FLEMING, W. The History of Tyre. FLoici, V. Die Chronologie der Bibel des Manetho und Berossos. Leipzig, 1880. HOoLscH_ER, G. Die Quellen des Josephus. Leipzig, 1904. JeREMIAS, A. Tyrus bis zur Zeit Nebukadnezzar. 1891. JosEpuHus, F. Antiquities of the Jews, translated by W. Whiston. KRAELING, E. G. H. Aram and Israel. New ‘Yrork, 1918. MacauisTer, R. A. S. The Philistines, Their History and Civiliza- tion. London, 1913. Paterson, A. Assyrian Sculptures; palace of Sinacherib. The Hague, 1915. PRET nite. Egypt and the Old Testament. Boston,1923. Rawlinson, G. The History of Herodotus. London, 1862. SCHNABEL, P. Berossos. Leipzig, 1923. SmiTH, G. A. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. (16th ed.). SMITH, G. A. Jerusalem from the earliest times to A.D. 70. New York, 1908. WINCKLER, H. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen. Leip- zig, 1692. iene? = i. ey wh ; ila 17 Date Due f 6 ar. foie TS acy Bs . 2 PRINTED |IN U.S. A, ah ; BS1197 .46.H77 Cul | ennacherib’s invasion of Palestine: Princeton Theologi cal Seminary-Speer Library ea ; ‘ : \ oe ; : : ’ , ’ > i tan : ; i 73° : 4 . * : ’ 3 wi ; ; ‘S: Le . } ’ aa ae ba bebe ® : ‘ e > i! : etek Fea? sy : ; ie tar A ; ¢ ek ee ‘ " ‘ ; ‘ . . 3 * ey ; b ; hae vey ‘ Toa) A : mt , : , : 4 . : ‘ j : } ; . wie ee be bee \ } : ; i ’ ’ . 4 Fart te Ey" A \ q MY , ‘ | a ; ‘ ee ee WS ie Gee eee tare tor * ; ’ ’ ; ‘i ees 4 ae), LE Sb eS ‘ = C J . s : Pee et ae ai ae Bi Si paw os as q . : : ces : : 5, th eos ky ; ’ : > * ; \ . : i ‘ , . Pe se Pees he be he Bee AS . ie i : A 4 bat 3 Fo eh) ey Te A . : ‘ ee : E Ae eat be 8256 ee te b . * ’ be) ‘ : re SNR See ; iu X ps oe 5 : : ‘ : tt be 2 eve hehe } eee ‘ " ‘ F : re* H Pe hee & ; : ; 4 ‘ ‘ i : : Re x a : . 3 4 +e et RE RE LE RE O _ : oe eS 4 EN . ’ ' F's r : ; ix Py ? ; 4 ; » Fa | ; p ~ ‘ : be cae ee Der ; , F > > | > of ee ‘ ic ce a Te ‘ : v te teea » Be pea T ke ; ; , fe ; * re? tan ‘ ia ; . in bp’ tk! DES be ves Toh tay: bees ‘ ; ' i ; ; eas ae ‘ ‘ iW 4 ; i » . wy .e hee bars is Ley ae tos ein the : , ’ ‘ ‘ ~ pa A ‘ as Lee ‘ ; : Ce pe bed be wh BO ‘ : wie ‘ : ; . s b , ‘ L , “ a ; i f ; . \ Tite ® re} be, bee ‘ Le ek ‘i vib te5 CPA $ : : : ' CE WS 5 i ; : ; ‘ ‘ he’ , ao a t AG ; ; ‘ tat 7 ea f : Pee ee te eT Re D vERE > we : i ; eS ee Pe Be REO be bee & hy : ; ; be my Phe oar De ° ‘ : ke bi bE Ss PEt & 8 Sao Ye : ’ i . A > , , > - 2 é t aS ’ ‘ ‘ se * . : ‘ wae ; Py 3 > ' Gi pel bot ‘ ; 4 . SE AE EE Ba 8 be we DP + SHE : \ i q ros Tae bs me eat eben ‘ | > ; ‘ te pa be SD wa ‘ v ; ; f oe i i j Q ‘ : se 5 ees bed 4 hes ri * > i® t > ey ’ be bES 204 ye3 haga BE) ; j : > Pe ’ net ¥E LJ . se + * pe ® + , " ‘ i . ¥ eb Sd i } ; ; bes ‘ : \ : . ; ; > > eee Fs ' a, ' tes ; Pi Fe ¢ PEkE + SLet ' eee : ee + hey ee P te. ' LS . sce sd ' : hd a . " A] . i » > = k Lees , . ie ee ee ee oF * ‘ se ' F ‘ ’ Te « 1, pi » : : pit ; Sah Tae oes i a, ; FET e trae: be Pe eee Be Toc ; : Late e4 > > a s a > s > s ' ¥ # s + ’ : » ’ ' iy Wa: ’ ; * s ® » PEPE FE RE VE DF Cos ee ae Piet eh & 22 $e eS DP t hee Ce ad P : oS To ‘ pees \ § ’ 4 2 +t pb he ea Be t " > ' we 9 ’ ' ‘ ¥ ; | 5 ‘ - + ’ i a ’ ' ' ’ a ce? & : : i ‘ i ER Ta See De ESTERS SSR heh : het i 4 i : : 25 ‘ hs Pe ee bed beep } ee > ; ie oe, ' fia +2 ‘ d : PORE BEE EE FE WE bee ie ee. te pee eee ’s oe he ei wae a , bie be} ’ Re he ee bE RE We Wie’ Pu é hey ' ‘ > vee aa be EU bet od hits ves . ac i2o Es ce ven ; hey : ; : ee be ke ie’ i‘ ae : me's tote Ta: , , eae ak et 5 ; ‘ te Le ee 3 4 Ye 8 i \ beg +e ae 4 ; i A } at ee: ht be PAN ¥. > ei Ta ret : ye r ' ’ 2. wx. +e Fy 3 > £ : . ‘ rq tir ‘ ‘ Oh Pe BErea D te ex i Recah, b r CekA be Be RE BE pes boy » ; 7 : ‘ ee F . > ne . ¥ Y \ y. i ’ y ‘ 5, t Ta. a : ’ : Toi tan ae up pe ‘ ; ; , PY POPS be sabes { ; : : ‘ : | ; " i ‘ ee pee le Toa 5 : SS i j velo’ , i : ae e aek ee eS Q Se , ‘ an oe @ 72 eG bu w : hal err te 4 f Pa: Tae Be he > Sor : ; : ar Viet : i eo ear 2 tie tes Be ; ik te} Fay oy ae ' ‘ ' v : : s ’ . : ’ vr + b * . 5 , 5 i 4 = ‘ i ee hh oak bat ae ee ‘ Ee ’ be ee Pe REY Fi 3 ’ . PETE Se Pe RE ee eet ; « Aes ee RE f i j eee : . : AE ve Be RS ba bes ; 2 oe eae oe | Fie Pe Ry Bee } i “ee 3 1 ES PS Pe Hi : Tec oh : +3 > ’ re eet te oe ee ee ae ) ; ’ ‘ ; : ie th bE Re Bet ¢ ‘ £8 , * 1 ' \ « ‘ : ‘ i : ; t ; tbls g be pt oe 8 fo WERE RES , Cae’ ; be ha be i >. ud 3 % at a ‘ Ve : ta! : : .e y act : Pe ¥ te hat eo ee aa ; Dt: ' Ke bd i ’ Liat ky ee att te ee vies ; be ae > ee ‘eae A bie ae he's 4 : : 4 ha KY ek i fe poke we oe ' Pye kee 1 ees he 4 . i ' ; ; : . ¢ G © . . . r ¥ Js * . C 7 26 i " \ ‘ 4 f : ie eu Be pe St he ae} Ds, ® be > ; : rete S : : Te: tee Vee y eo se ees Th ; : i : fed 3 ew + , +i at ee bee Peg ea : ’ ee we be : j : ; TRLPateTaTset eet Sas oe ‘ ; ‘ei, bers ‘ fs ® * > » . +e ees » et ' ¥ ' ‘ ; De ea ee erat De } ie: : rf , ‘Le Le ae: ey te F : eT a ; bie + Tay ’ yey } : ; . pe we Fa ve TZ ; Pipe pe Be ey yes i ‘ > BEE OP be A cf ee yee eae t wee be Hes e% ; bi gees Pe ne ley ¢ be. hee i yee : ‘ : ; CPt : 4 ¥ » : rs 2) ‘ + ‘ s » > ’ . ; Peote’ eS teehee’ te ee : at eo a: = ete oe a ey Gab ort rae > : 4 ' ; ' f Fe Pe Le Re By ; ‘ : 1 ; : : ; Le ee wt , a's the p a ay “te ae RY : t ‘ f 3 ' ; keug f H ne eee ’ ta ne vies Rah 4 5 ee Pe ay es ‘ Be BERD Se otf + Sipe he ey ‘ te) Pas : t ; > 3 7 1 see ‘ 4 C U ome rt Soke ee ee ee De ee ‘ . ; q : > ' eee ; r Fe % oes F iv ‘ ‘ ' Meee ’ hen A ; i ; o. ee 8 *¢ ee: ; eee ? et t wae] a he 4 * . ve C tee Vm an wy oy ' ? / : ; ee) 5 , <4 . ¥ b ; ' HHP 2 Li F ‘ ‘ . “Se § © yy f ; * + se-h yy ARS L 4 Me ‘ id 4 Ls , by Stee S 2 od : Ae Si AP / io be & i Te, aes ; ee bey SESE EES AE PORE F nie Pe ee 4 ’ ; . : cae AP a reat : te tas r A eet Tee ke. ; : ' ’ . bee ee Poa ks ; cee * 4 se we a We’ , * ‘ 4 t & ‘ b p's } ears: Tete b ; +o . i oe Re. F ee Yess VA. F ry Se ONT pes i ; : te} i ai e's ee > 13 4 Res Fs _ ; ; eB ¢ ‘ : ; an h ; ’ ‘ ety , ‘ vine } 4 eh we eee ee, ye te 4 7 y eek $ ‘ ‘ ; he F BP Gee z PEA i ete 5 ? q + + eR rar aA ve A : tay Tete te ae ly Paes : ; { $ ; : ‘ res a 5 rey ; > se GR Oe Ae , ee pe 3 - / ' Tolar es ey, a5 : ; : ; : ‘ - : Se net > ; en" ‘ ; ‘ th aes ' ‘a : , ’ : ety ; 1 vet beet pies A a eae 7 3 ee be} ‘tha : 4 i Gaeta ; ‘ ’ =e } * t he’ et tay a ae} } fey A ; ’ * « ¥ bose’ " . . mat ; ; ' i te P : A se 4 ia ly 2 > - ‘ Ms 5 ' y $ ‘ fr ; * 4 C h Le! ' eH eee eae’ ‘ aes * 3 H 4 ‘oi : FRA fae eee ' H 4 Se Se as ear ea a : Bie ; : aa 7 at ' Fe eu ke f } : ' i t ' Se PE FE Se RO ee yo ‘ fea ¢% 5b pm PAT ere Ta: ’ ve RED ‘ eS bie yh 4h ‘ reat ay pes be bet > ‘ /| > ¢ 4 oe 4 t te Poy ; cH Pee fs bie ae y . ‘ ar ‘ . t * re * ‘ 2 ; ee ee y eae te ee pie es ye ‘ ae weve Oe + > ' f é ’ Fe eee pie ee ‘e's eh A f 1 i) Be 3 8 ; é te? * r , ae Fae Le A ak 7. oe eee oe & . * 7 ee ' oe ey ; ' ear : ‘ ; Byer eG te + iy \ ne eed ot Gh ‘ . m : x ‘ Beal se re bY} é ; é ; : ; ‘ Py re HY nie bie $ pep : Teo a roe ; ony ‘ ’ § 3 rider ; te Peeper pe pes t ee PRB d ; ' ae a : 2 ta . ee bh pes pie +e e k i * $ hrs Pose ; Piece ; #2 ek ‘gly f i : . re) § : rel sit si ef pe ye pe ado as ; : ; ; } seo peyae ae * tECes 425 ce 4 ; ; : . ‘ ik har ee ae ee he +2 48s y 5 : : : ee 1 se pes > ; ; 4 bd? eS ; . i ys ae ee ba a ec et ses $2 bE ther ab > riaeh fj 4 FORO yey Ts Pa ec ous f eye , > 4 ; £% LA > i ’ i Bf 34) 5 : ay ae € 4 ¥ A A ‘ A Tare veer 4 2% : ; oes ' ti tac ' ; > ees ; i ; ; wes f fa > t 4 F } nie f ; ; 4 ¢ ce fees wee eer +4, P vo > c ae . : A pas te eet By bee eats . J 5 ; } . 4 ‘ ¢ ; ‘ eG pe pees ‘ bey pa se wes Me Pe > aS ets ‘ “ce hon a? > “oe Tay" i A ae at i" Bea ho 7 .2 4 + pe > ti Pi ptcay @ ’ : ’ ‘ 4 f , ‘ , 1 a ‘ ‘ , : ; : Pe pike ep eg ; ‘ ' nee } ‘ i ba § f f dH SH Re Be ec? sé > > ; ‘ ' F s ‘ ‘ 5% st a ee role e s 5 : F F ; ; Wie 4 es te ae bt ee ye aeae pak rs rie et - i ‘ oa. Ta AE NE eet an Fe ey SF aS tarts ¢ , : ‘ey Poke 4 as ar bi ute " : hae ; ; Stee TE A aes j : \ Ms » ' ‘ ei F ? ’ } ais ; nee a4 ; a . a fs ; , ‘ +44 : : 5 ; — ‘ ’ ' ; ‘ nf wat Te crs Le oes ’ A . t r pe @' 9 ) } aé%4 1 : awe 4 Pee ae & TS ELE SI RARE Ae LD, #4! ‘ ‘ : res oe pe Pe hee se cc UN be ek ‘ ty: et 4 ‘ ht OF MEME pA. ‘ ri 4 ns : tat oR vs * | : : se hes ; Phe ied a8! SE RL BL : - , . ee et pees ; Wi > ; ty q 5 , t , ‘ a ae ; ' ! see 3 ‘ 4 ; Page > \ Five ' eat et sey ' : j poy p / roe 4 ’ 46 : ye se ge} : : ‘ vey ‘ ae eee : co vhs aeons r ee t 4 1 : ; ire i “fs ¥ : ee ee ey 2 bes ae he hee be bas / j . a2 int , eee 4 Lape Pigs ' : . , . ; > ; : , ’ ‘ ’ ‘ ‘§ ’ \ > ‘ ee oe a f . ‘ rs t t 2 3 J re REE Tat ie & et pes : set yey ae : Fe. ee } . poet pies ‘ ; , ; : * e ‘ . 1 ‘ ‘ " { , : peg ete : To A nes ; , nie res ' > $ . , ; , r - . » y ’ , ’ ; - hs " ; : , . - . ; ’ 4 > t , ’ ; re Bs ety wil ; roe .f% $ ; : poet eee re he 1 " as & , set . % , ; 2 q % ' { ; 4 A f ' ‘ ' ' . aa 4 , A ay! ; las ' ? } af . ; 4 ’ 3 sm 4 ' eet ; ° ‘ : : ; ' ‘ > , s > . ; :