One Invasion or two?

When Sennacherib, king of Assyria, sent his troops to Jerusalem demanding its surrender Hezekiah knew that his kingdom of Judah faced possible extinction. The Assyrians had already conquered Samaria, thus ending the northern Hebrew kingdom, but so far God had preserved Jerusalem and Judah. Hezekiah couldn't know, of course, that through divine deliverance God would grant Judah another century's probation, until the nation was finally destroyed, not by the Assyrians, but by the Babylonians.

The story of this most dramatic confrontation between the kings of Assyria and Judah occupies nearly two chapters in 2 Kings (18:13-19:36) and is repeated in two chapters of Isaiah (36, 37). The narrative's length and its repetition show how crucial the situation was. This pivotal struggle between Judah and Assyria has given rise to considerable scholarly controversy, mainly on the question of whether Sennacherib campaigned against Hezekiah once or twice. Every one agrees that at least one invasion is described in Sennacherib's annals of his third campaign in 701 B.C. Yet that record corresponds directly only to the first four verses of the Biblical account (2 Kings 18:13-16). A comparison of these verses with the Assyrian annals shows differences and apparent conflicts with the rest of the record in 2 Kings. Thus the question is: Does 2 Kings 18:17-19:36 describe a continuation of the same campaign or a later campaign?

The record in 2 Kings begins with the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, which cor responds to 701 B.C.. Sennacherib came to the throne in 705 B.C., at the death of Sargon II on a foreign battlefield, and conducted his third campaign in his fourth regnal year, 701 B.C. Thus the two accounts coincide when the dates are translated into their Julian calendar equivalents. The Bible record follows with the statement "Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them" (2 Kings 18:13, R.S.V.). In his annal entry, Sen nacherib was more specific: "As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth) ramps, and battering-rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work."

Consequently Hezekiah decided to submit and pay the tribute demanded. He sent an embassy to negotiate the payment with Sennacherib at Lachish (verse 14). We have extra-Biblical evidence that Sennacherib campaigned against Lachish in the scenes of the so-called Lachish reliefs, which adorned the walls of his palace in Nineveh and depicted his conquest of that city. According to both Biblical and Assyrian accounts Hezekiah paid the tribute required of him—in verse 14, he paid thirty talents of gold and three hundred talents of silver; but in Sennacherib's annals, thirty talents of gold and eight hundred of silver. The difference can be attributed either to scribal error or to Assyrian exaggeration. In addition, the annals list other payments in luxury goods.

The two sources thus far reveal four relatively direct correspondences indicating essentially the same course of events: (1) the date of 701 B.C; (2) the Assyrian conquest of the cities of Judah; (3) the inclusion of Lachish among those cities; and (4) the amounts of tribute.

Here the entry ends in Sennacherib's annals for his 701 B.C. campaign. The Biblical account continues, although with a narrative that appears different in character and sometimes in conflict with what has been related previously. In stead of being satisfied with the amount of Hezekiah's tribute, as one would infer from the annals and from the Biblical verses considered thus far, Sennacherib, according to verses 31-35, sent his general to Jerusalem with a demand for unconditional surrender, elaborated at great length with threats based on earlier Assyrian conquests!

Furthermore, chapter 19:9 mentions Tirhakah as a king who came from Egypt to aid Hezekiah. But Egyptian chronological data indicate that Tirhakah did not begin to reign until 690 B.C. a decade later than Sennacherib's 701 B.C. invasion. Sennacherib's record does mention (without naming the pharaoh) an engagement with the Egyptians, but it places that engagement before the invasion of Judah instead of during or after it, as chapter 19 appears to do. Those who hold to a single Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 B.C. explain that Tirhakah, actually only a prince in 701 B.C., could have been called a king in the Bible because he had become king by the time the account was written.

Because of these considerations, and because it is difficult to synchronize the place names mentioned in the two ac counts into a coherent and strategically reasonable record of one campaign, some scholars feel that the records of two campaigns have been joined together in the Biblical text. Most Egyptologists and Assyriologists have held to one invasion because the annals record only one; Biblical scholars, who have felt the difficulty in seeing one campaign in the Biblical account, have held that there was a second campaign of which no extra-Biblical records exist (the last eight years of Sennacherib's annals have never been recovered). I am sympathetic with those who favor a second campaign and would suggest that an Assyrian text brought to light in 1974, when two claytablet fragments were joined, relates to such an event.

This Assyrian text consists of two pieces from an originally complete text. Both were known separately in the British Museum for some time, but only recently did scholars discover they be longed together to form what Assyriologists call a "join." Sometimes fragments of one original text are found in different museums; making such a "join" re quires difficult scholarly detective work.

These two fragments were originally attributed incorrectly to Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, respectively. The brilliant deductive work of Israeli Assyriologist N. Na'aman demonstrated this join and showed convincingly that the Judahite king referred to in the text must have been Hezekiah, even though his name is damaged in both of its occurrences. Thus, this text was written for Hezekiah's Assyrian foe Sennacherib. It was not a part of Sennacherib's annals; it was a particular type of text, known as a "Letter to God." Assyrian kings had their scribes write on occasion rather self-laudatory reports from the king to his god, couched in a more elaborate literary style than the dry and monotonous phrases of the annals. It was from such a letter that the pieces in question came.

When joined together, these two fragments provide 16 lines of text, which can be divided into two sections. The first section deals with the conquest of Azekah in Judah, and the second with the conquest of a royal city of the Philistines that Hezekiah had previously annexed to his kingdom. The second section furnishes more direct evidence of being a record of a second campaign of Sennacherib in Palestine.

10) the city of Azekah I besieged, I captured, I carried off its spoil, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire . . .

11) (name broken away) a royal (city) of the Philistines, which (Hezek)iah had captured and strengthened for himself. . . .

12) ........ like a tree (standing out on a ridge?) ....

13) surrounded with great towers and exceedingly difficult. . . .

14) palace like a mountain was barred Sennacherib sits on his throne receiving booty from Lachish. in front of them and high. ... it was dark and the sun never shown on it, its waters were situated in darkness and its overflow. ......

16) its mouth was cut with axes and a moat was dug around it ...

17) . . . (warriors) skillful in battle he caused to enter into it, their weapons he bound. ......

18) I caused the warriors of Amurru, all of them, to carry earth . .

19) against them. In the seventh time his . . . the great like a pot.

20) ... (cattle and she) ep I carried out from its midst. ....

We need examine only a few points in this dramatic description of Sennacherib's conquest of the city. The reference to a dark and sunless place appears to be a description of a tunnel that brought water within the city's fortifications (comparable to Hezekiah's famous water tunnel at Jerusalem). "Amurru" refers to the "Westlands" from the point of view of Assyria; that is, not only Assyrian soldiers were brought to fight against this city, but also those from other western kingdoms ruled by Sennacherib.

Though the name of this "royal city of the Philistines" is lost because of a break in the tablet, it must have been one of the five royal cities of the Philistines. Three of these, Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon—all on or near the coast—can be eliminated as being too far from Azekah. None could have been the next city besieged by Sennacherib's troops according to any logical geographical order for this campaign. (Azekah has been identified with Tell Zakariyeh, 10 miles north of Lachish and 15 miles west of Bethlehem.) The choice, then, must lie be tween the other two royal cities farther inland—Gath and Ekron. Their sites are disputed, but they are the only serious candidates for this identification.

If Sennacherib invaded Judah only once, this text describes the siege of either Ekron or Gath in 701 B.C. His annals for that campaign tell us that he conquered Phoenicia first and Philistia second, then turned his attention to Judah, after being momentarily distracted by the Egyptian attack. His major problem in Philistia was Ekron. The Ekronites had taken their pro-Assyrian king and handed him over to Hezekiah for safekeeping, according to the annals: "The officials, the patricians and the (common) people of Ekron who had thrown Padi, their king, into fetters (because he was) loyal to (his) solemn oath (sworn) by the god Ashur, and had handed him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (and) he held him in prison, unlawfully, as if he were an enemy."

While Sennacherib was dealing with Ekron, the Egyptians arrived, hoping to bring relief to Philistia. The Assyrians turned them back, then completed the task of subduing Ekron. "I assaulted Ekron and killed the officials and patricians who had committed the crime and hung their bodies on poles surrounding the city. The (common) citizens who were guilty of minor crimes, I considered prisoners of war. The rest of them, those who were not accused of crimes and misbehavior, I released. I made Padi, their king, come from Jerusalem and set him as their lord on the throne, imposing upon him the tribute (due) to me (as) overlord."

From this it is evident that Hezekiah was not in possession of Ekron at the time of Sennacherib's 701 B.C. campaign. He had not captured the city; the Ekronites themselves had taken control of it and sent Padi to Hezekiah. Thus if Ekron is the city mentioned in Sennachcrib's "Letter to God," which also refers to the conquest of Azekah, that text could not refer to 701 B.C.

Could Ekron have been the city besieged in a later Assyrian campaign? Yes. Sennacherib did not destroy it in 701 B.C.; he left it with Padi as king. Further, Ekron appears in Assyrian records not only before Sennacherib's period (in the time of Sargon II) but also later, in the reigns of Sennacherib's son Esarhaddon and his grandson Ashurbanipal, both of whom mention its king Ikasu (Achish).

On the other hand, Gath, the only other possibility for the city in question, was probably no longer in existence during Sennacherib's day; the last clear reference to it is the record of its destruction by Uzziah of Judah, who "broke down the wall of Gath" (2 Chron. 26:6, R.S.V), at least fifty years before Sennacherib's 701 B.C. campaign. Gath is mentioned in Amos 6:2 as having been destroyed by the prophet's time. Did Gath ever recover from this blow? It seems unlikely, since the Assyrian records mentioned above in connection with Ekron commonly mention three of the other royal cities of Philistia (Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon) but never Gath. Thus it appears that Gath could not have been besieged by Sennacherib.

The conclusion is that Ekron was the royal Philistine city named (but now lost) in Sennacherib's "Letter to God." Since the city, according to that text, had been annexed and fortified by Hezekiah and besieged by Sennacherib, and since these circumstances do not fit the status of Ekron in the 701 B.C. annals, the events of the "Letter to God," including Sennacherib's siege of that city, should be attributed to a later campaign of that king against Hezekiah.

Another interesting feature of this "Letter to God" from Sennacherib also suggests it belongs to a second Palestinian campaign. The god to whom Sennacherib addressed his letter was Anshar. Anshar was not Ashur, the national god of Assyria, but an old Babylonian god. References to this Babylonian god do not appear in Sennacherib's inscriptions until 689 B.C., after he conquered Babylon and disposed of the threat that city had posed to his rule of the Assyrian empire. Sennacherib's inclusion of Anshar among the gods of his inscriptions after 689 B.C. was a theological way of expressing the political realities that had come to pass.

By invoking the name of this Babylonian god in connection with this Palestinian campaign, Sennacherib indicated his belief that the gods of Babylon were on his side and that they would defeat his enemies, just as they had handed their city over to him. Thus the fact that Sennacherib invokes the name of the god Anshar instead of Ashur at the beginning of this text indicates a time after the fall of Babylon in 689 B.C. and requires a second campaign to Palestine conducted late in his reign. It cannot belong to his first Palestinian campaign in 701 B.C.

From the conclusion that Ekron was the royal city of Philistia mentioned in the "Letter to God," its history through this period can be reconstructed briefly. The Ekronites rebelled and disposed of their pro-Assyrian king Padi; Sennacherib in 701 B.C. punished them and put Padi back on the throne as a vassal king, then in this same campaign subjugated Judah and divided pieces of Judahite territory among the kings who reigned in the Philistine cities of Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza (no mention of Gath), according to the entry in the annals for the campaign of 701 B.C. Later, when Sennacherib was absent from the west—especially 694-689 B.C., when he was occupied with Babylon—the kings in the west had an opportunity to rebel. Hezekiah appears to have done so, and his interest would naturally have centered in reclaiming his territory lost to Philistine cities. The one nearest to Judah that had received some Judahite territory was Ekron; thus, when Sennacherib returned on his second Palestinian campaign, he found Ekron in the hands of Hezekiah and had to reconquer it. That return invasion most likely occurred after his five-year campaign against Babylon, ending in 689 B.C. (where his annals that we possess end) and before 686 B.C., Hezekiah's death year, according to the chronological data in the Bible. The year 688 B.C., commonly suggested, seems reasonable.

These factors fit the reference to Tirhakah (2 Kings 19:9) as king of Egypt and ally of Hezekiah, since he became pharaoh in 690 B.C. Likewise, the title "king of Ethiopia" (he was of the Nubian Twenty-fifth Dynasty) is valid.

The line dividing 2 Kings 18 into two accounts of separate invasions by Sennacherib must be drawn, then, between verses 16 and 17. In that case the Assyrian king must have left off the first siege of Lachish during his first campaign, 701 B.C., when Hezekiah paid tribute (chap. 18;14), and besieged it again during his second campaign, in 688 B.C., at which time the city was conquered. While his general was away at Jerusalem, Sennacherib moved on from Lachish to be siege Libnah (chap. 19:8). Thus the con quest of Lachish, as depicted in the reliefs on his palace walls, probably served as a consolation prize for his failure to conquer Jerusalem.

Dating the conquest of Lachish to Sennacherib's second Palestinian campaign explains its remarkable absence from the annal entry for his 701 B.C. campaign, a strange omission otherwise, since he thought so much of that victory he had it depicted on the walls of his palace.

Sennacherib's recently pieced-together "Letter to God" provides the best indication, thus far, that he was indeed on a second campaign in Pales tine when he took Ekron away from Hezekiah and threatened Jerusalem.