by
Damien F. Mackey
“In 701, when Sennacherib had ravaged the whole land and had Jerusalem
under blockade (ch. 1:4-9), if words mean anything (“Why be beaten any more, [why] continue rebellion?” v. 5), [Isaiah] counseled surrender; and ch. 22:1-14 ...
suggests that nothing in the course of these events had caused him to alter his evaluation of the national character and policy. It is not easy to believe that in this very same year he also counseled defiance and promised deliverance”.
J. Bright, A History of Israel
In Ch. IX of The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle, “The Identity of Tirhakah”, we read of this bifurcation of pharaoh Tirhakah: http://www.yahweh.org/publications/sjc/sj09Chap.pdf
The Tirhakah of Scriptures was not Khu-Re´ Nefertem Tirhakah of Dynasty XXV of Egypt. It is true that both were Ethiopians, and that the Ethiopians controlled Egypt during the latter half of the eighth and early part of the seventh centuries B.C.E. But here the similarity ends. Historians have simply ignored the fact that Kush was ruled by a confederation of kings and that two of these kings from the same general period both carried the name Tirhakah. A close examination and analysis of the relevant ancient records reveals the existence of two Kushite kings name Tirhakah – Khu-Re´ Nefertem Tirhakah and Tsawi Tirhakah Warada Nagash – one a pharaoh of Egypt and the other a king of Kush. Evidence will also show that Tsawi Tirhakah is better known under the name Snefer-Ra Piankhi. ....
The author of this piece is of the opinion that Sennacherib king of Assyria, a contemporary of “Tirhakah king of Ethiopia” (Isaiah 37:9), had waged only the one campaign against Israel – a view that is completely at variance with the findings of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
According to this thesis, king Sennacherib’s highly successful campaign against Judah, his Third Campaign, cannot possibly be equated with the disastrous campaign when 185,000 Assyrians marched to their demise in Israel.
Here is part of what I then wrote (Volume Two, pp. 1-2):
Distinguishing Sennacherib’s Two Major Invasions
We are now well equipped it would seem to answer with conviction an age-long question as formulated by Bright:1156 “The account of Sennacherib’s actions against Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:13 to 19:37 (//Isa., ch.36f.) presents a difficult problem. Does it contain the record of one campaign or two?” The answer is, according to the revised history that was developed in VOLUME ONE, two campaigns. These are:
(i) Sennacherib’s Third Campaign (conventionally dated to 701 BC, but re-dated by me to 712 BC); and
(ii) his campaign about a decade later, during the co-reign of Esarhaddon, after the destruction of Babylon.
These were not of course Sennacherib’s only western campaigns, for he (as Sargon II) had conquered Samaria in 722 BC, and had likely reconquered it in 720 BC. Sennacherib moreover claimed to have been taking tribute from king Hezekiah of Judah even before his Third Campaign (refer back to p. 145 of Chapter 6).
It remains to separate invasions (i) and (ii) as given in KCI [Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah]; a task that proponents of the ‘two invasions’ theory, myself included, have found far from easy to do. Bright, himself a champion of this latter theory, has referred to the “infinite variations in detail” amongst scholars trying to settle the issue.1157 He has rightly observed, as have others as well,1158 that there is a good match between Sennacherib’s Third Campaign account and the early part of 2 Kings. Beyond this, Bright has noticed a polarity in KCI - suggesting the telescoping of what were two separate campaign accounts - with Hezekiah on the one hand being castigated by Isaiah for resisting the Assyrians, by turning to Egypt for help, and on the other being told that the Assyrians would be defeated:1159
... Isaiah’s utterances with regard to the Assyrian crisis are, it seems to me, far better understood under the assumption that there were two invasions by Sennacherib. The sayings attributed to him in II Kings 18:17 to 19:37 (//Isa., chs. 36f.) all express the calm assurance that Jerusalem would be saved, and the Assyrians frustrated, by Yahweh’s power; there is no hint of rebuke to Hezekiah reminding him of his reckless policy which had brought the nation to this pass.
… Yet his known utterances in 701 [sic] and the years immediately preceding (e.g., chs. 28:7-13, 14-22; 30:1-7, 8-17; 31:1-3) show that he consistently denounced the rebellion, and the Egyptian alliance that supported it, as a folly and a sin, and predicted for it unmitigated disaster.
1156 A History of Israel, p. 296.
1157 Ibid, p. 300. B. Childs thinks that “a definite impasse has been reached” amongst scholars, with: “No consensus [having] developed regarding the historical problems of the [701 BC] invasion …”. Isaiah and
the Assyrian Crisis, p. 12.
1158 Ibid, p. 297. Cf. J. Pritchard, ANET, pp. 287f; Childs, ibid, p. 72 (he claims a “striking agreement …”).
1159 Ibid, p. 306. Emphasis added.
In 701, when Sennacherib had ravaged the whole land and had Jerusalem under blockade (ch. 1:4-9), if words mean anything (“Why be beaten any more, [why] continue rebellion?” v. 5), he counseled surrender; and ch. 22:1-14 ... suggests that nothing in the course of these events had caused him to alter his evaluation of the national character and policy. It is not easy to believe that in this very same year he also counseled defiance and promised deliverance.
One can easily agree with Bright when he goes on to say that “different sets of circumstances must be presumed”,1160 and that “telescoping” has been employed.1161 For the ancient Jews, apparently, there was a strong link in the overall scheme of things between Assyria’s first and second efforts to conquer Jerusalem, though well separated in time. The KCI narratives read as if virtually seamless. In attempting to separate the two campaigns, we shall need to draw upon a variety of sources in order to determine where the actual break occurs. But, thanks to our findings in VOLUME ONE, we no longer have the problem facing proponents of the ‘two campaigns’ theory of having to establish the fact of a second Assyrian invasion into Palestine.
[End of quotes]
“The Identity of Tirhakah” article above arrives at a conclusion that I, too, had reached in my university thesis, based on Petrie, that Tirhakah was the same as the 25th Dynasty’s Piankhi (thesis, Volume One, p. 384).
For more on this identification, see my series:
Piankhi same as Bible's Tirhakah?
Piankhi same as Bible's Tirhakah? Part Two: 25th (Ethiopian) Dynasty not clear cut
Given this connection, which, if correct, would mean a significant expansion of the current length of reign attributed to Tirhakah (c. 690–664 BC, conventional dating), then it is surprising that the author of “The Identity of Tirhakah” would need to Procrusteanise poor Tirhakah.
No comments:
Post a Comment