sennacherib's second palestinian campaign

JBL 104/3 (1985) 401-418

SENNACHERIB'S SECOND PALESTINIAN CAMPAIGN* WILLIAM H. SHEA

Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49103

I. Introduction

The suggestion that Sennacherib campaigned against Judah twice was introduced into the literature by GÌ Rawlinson in 1858, and the extensive bibliography on this proposal published by HÎ Hr Rowley a century later found scholarly opinion still almost evenly divided on it^^Assyriologists and Egyptologists presently favor the one-campaign theory because only one campaign is mentioned in Sennacherib's known annals. W/F^Albright and his students generated considerable support for the two-campaign theory among biblical scholars, but with Albright's death some of this support appears to be waning.** Textbooks on Palestinian archaeology commonly attribute destruction levels in sites from this period to the campaign of 701 without considering the possibility that Sennacherib may have destroyed some of them during a later campaign.3

For those who hold the two-campaign theory 2 Kgs 18:13-16 refers to the first campaign whereas 2 Kgs 18:17-19:36 refers to the second. For those who hold that 2 Kgs 18:13-19:36 refers to one campaign these two sections go over the same ground twice. Two main elements are involved here: the number of Assyrian encounters with the Egyptians and the number of Assyrian embassies sent to Jerusalem. One-campaign theories appear in two variants here. For those who hold that the Assyrians engaged the Egyptians twice, there was only one embassy to Jerusalem between those encounters.4 For those who hold that the Assyrians engaged the Egyptians

* Earlier versions of this study were presented to meetings of the American Oriental Society in Toronto, Canada, on 11 April 1978 and the Society of Biblical Literature in New York on 22 December 1982.

1 H. H. Rowley, Men of God (London: Nelson, 1963) 107-8. 2 W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.; Garden City, NY: Double-

day, 1957) 314 n. 53; J. Bright, A History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 296-308.

3 K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (4th ed.; London: Benn, 1979) 287, 324; K. N. Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978) 54.

4 A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (New York: Scribner's, 1923) 297-309; R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; 7th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1925-1932) 2. 387-90. See also the references below under note 8.

402 Journal of Biblical Literature

only once, there were two embassies to Jerusalem and the engagement with the Egyptians was fought between them.5

Convergences

A simple approach to this problem is first to examine those areas in which interpreters agree. One thing is accepted by all: the events described in the entry in Sennacherib's annals for 701 correspond directly to the events described by 2 Kgs 18:13-16.β Four main elements are involved here: (1) The date: Hezekiah's fourteenth year (2 Kgs 18:13) and Sennacherib's third campaign both fell in 701 B.C.7 (2) Judahite cities were conquered: Sennacherib's claim of conquering forty-six strong-walled cities corresponds well to "all the fortified cities of Judah" he conquered according to 2 Kgs 18:13. (3) Jerusalem was not conquered: 2 Kgs 18:14-16 indicates that Hezekiah paid tribute but did not surrender Jerusalem, whereas the Assyrian annals refer only to the city's siege, not its conquest. (4) The amount of tribute Hezekiah paid: 2 Kgs 18:14 lists this as three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold, whereas the annals give the same amount of gold with eight hundred talents of silver. A scribal error in either tradition could easily explain this minor discrepancy.

Thus far the correlation seems clear: these two accounts refer to the same events of the Assyrian campaign of 701.

Divergences

Divergences between the two sections of this biblical narrative and between it and extrabiblical sources arise from a comparison with contents of the narrative that begins with 2 Kgs 18:17. Three main differences are present here: (1) contrasts within the biblical text, (2) contrasts between the biblical record and Sennacherib's annals, and (3) a contrast between the biblical record and Egyptian sources. The first problem is political, the second involves military strategy and geography, and the third is concerned with the Egyptian king involved.

The political problem. If 2 Kgs 18:17-19:36 refers to the same campaign as that described in 2 Kgs 18:13-16, then a problem arises from the two courses of action taken by Hezekiah—capitulation and resistance (2 Kgs 18:15 versus 2 Kgs 19:19)—and the two reactions of Sennacherib to those

5 W. O. E. Oesterly and T. H. Robinson, Λ History of Israel (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932) 2. 394-99; A. Parrot, Nineveh and the Old Testament (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955) 51-63.

6 ANET 287-88. 7 D. N. Freedman, "The Chronology of Israel," in The Bible and the Ancient Near East

(ed. G. E. Wright; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 277; S. H. Horn, "The Chronology of King Hezekiah's Reign," AUSS 2 (1964) 40-52.

Shea: Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign 403

actions—satisfaction with the tribute paid and his demand for unconditional surrender (2 Kgs 18:14 and his annals versus 2 Kgs 19:31). These differences can be accounted for relatively well by a change in the political situation between two campaigns, but it is difficult to explain them within the confines of one campaign.

The strategic problem. The problem here is when and where the Egyptian army engaged the Assyrian army. Sennacherib's annals locate that encounter at Eltekeh in Philistia, while his army was on its way from Joppa to Ekron. In the biblical account, however, Sennacherib was already at Libnah in Judah when he received the news that the Egyptians were coming (2 Kgs 19:8-9). Any logical movement of troops here would indicate that the encounter with the Egyptians recorded in the annals should have occurred before the encounter implied by the Bible, if they occurred during the same campaign.

Various reconstructions have been proposed to reconcile this discrepancy. The most recent proposals, especially those of K. A. Kitchen and F. J. Yurco, favor the view that the Assyrians fought two battles with the Egyptians during this one campaign.8 They agree that the battle described by Sennacherib's annals is not the same encounter as that referred to in 2 Kings 19. If the encounters of these two different Egyptian divisions with the Assyrians can be separated by weeks or months, why not separate them by years and put them in separate Assyrian campaigns?

The problematic king. The reference to Tirhakah as the king of Kush who set out from Egypt to fight Sennacherib in Palestine according to 2 Kgs 19:9 poses a problem of a chronological nature for the one-campaign theory. It has now been established from Egyptian sources that Tirhakah began to reign in 690.9 Obviously, therefore, he could not have been king as early as 701 when Sennacherib first campaigned in Palestine. From this correlation the question arises whether Tirhakah could have gone to Palestine in 701 at all. The popular response to this problem currently is to hold that Tirhakah did go to Palestine in 701, but only as a prince. Thus, the title "king" used for him in 2 Kgs 19:9 is seen as a prolepsis.10 No such prolepsis

8 K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1973) 383-86; F. J. Yurco, "Sennacherib's Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku," Serapis 6 (1980) 221-40. Kitchen assumes that both divisions of the Egyptian army were in Palestine when the first engagement was fought, so the second engagement was fought soon after the first. Yurco assumes that the second Egyptian division was called up from Egypt after the first engagement was fought, so Yurco's reconstruction requires a longer interval of time between the two engagements.

9 R. A. Parker, "The Length of the Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty," Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts—Abteilung Kairo 15 (1957) 208-12.

10 Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period, 386 η. 823.


is necessary, however, in the cases of Sennacherib "king" of Assyria or Hezekiah "king" of Judah.

Different scholars have evaluated these problems in different ways and have come to different conclusions about them. Taken together, however, they at least suggest the possibility that Sennacherib could have campaigned in Palestine twice. Of the discussion of this problem J. Bright has observed, "The question has been a subject of debate for more than a century without any consensus having been arrived at; it is probable that none will be, short of the discovery of fresh extra-biblical evidence—say, of Sennacherib's official annals for approximately the last decade of his reign."11

The purpose of this study is to suggest that evidence has been accumulating that lends support to the idea that Sennacherib campaigned in Palestine a second time. These lines of evidence come from the three geographical centers involved: Assyria, Palestine, and Egypt. The examination of these sources below follows that geographical order.

II. Assyria

The New Text

The text for examination here comes from a join made between two fragments in the British Museum. One of these fragments (K 6205) previously was attributed to Tiglath-pileser III,12 whereas the other fragment (BM 82-3-23, 131) formerly was connected with Sargon II.13 N. Na'aman recently made the join between these two fragments and established their connection with Sennacherib. The text he has reconstructed in this way is translated as follows:14

(3) [ Anshar, my lord, encourag]ed me and against the land of Ju[dah I marched. In] the course of my campaign, the tribute of the kifngs of Philistia? I received

(4) [ . . . . with the mig]ht? of Anshar, my lord, the province of [Hezek]iah of Judah like [

(5) [ ] the city of Azekah, his stronghold, which is between my [bojrder and the land of Judah [ . . . .

(6) [like the nest of the eagle?] located on a mountain ridge, like pointed iron? daggers without number reaching high to heaven t . . . .

(7) [its walls] were strong and rivaled the highest mountains, to the

(mere) sight, as if from the sky [appears its head?

11 Bright, History of Israel, 296. 12 P. Rost, Die Keilinschrifttexte Tiglat Pilesers III (Leipzig: Pfeiffer) 18-20. 13 Η. Tadmor, "The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur," JCS 12 (1958) 80-84. 14 N. Na'aman, "Sennacherib's 'Letter to God* on His Campaign to Judah," BASOR 214

(1974) 26-28.


(8) [by means of beaten (earth) ra]mps, mighty? battering rams brought near, with the attack by foot soldiers (using) mi[nes, breeches

(9) [ ] they had seen [the approach of my cav]alry and they had heard the roar of the mighty troops of the god Anshar and [their hea]rts became afraid [

(10) [the city Azekah I besieged,] I captured, I carried off its spoil, I destroyed, I devastated, [I burned with fire

(11) [the city of Gath?] a royal [city] of the Philistines, which H[eze-k]iah had captured and strengthened for himself [

(12) [ ] like a tree [standing out on a ridge?

(13) [ ] surrounded with great [to]wers and exceedingly difficult [its aseent?

(14) [ ] palace like a mountain was barred in front of them and high [its top?

(15) [ ] it was dark and the sun never shone on it, its waters were situated in darkness and [its?] overflow [

(16) [ ] its [mou]th was cut with axes and a moat was dug around « [ . . . .

(17) [ warriors] skillful in battle he caused to enter into it, their weapons he bound (on them) to [offer battle

(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 [of clay? I smashed?

(20) [ cattle and she]ep I carried out from its midst and counted as spo[il

Na'aman has attributed this text to Sennacherib for historical and linguistic reasons.15 His arguments for such a connection appear convincing.

15 Historically this text is best connected with Sennacherib because—as far as Palestinian policy was concerned —the kings who preceded him were mainly involved with the northern kingdom of Israel and the kings who succeeded him held both Israel and Judah as subservient territories. Sennacherib was the only Assyrian king known to have invaded Judah, and he was the one who subjugated it. This text must also be dated in 712 or later because of its reference to the border between Philistia and Judah as "my border." This only became the case when portions of Philistia were annexed by Sargon in 712. But Sargon did not participate personally in that campaign against Philistia, as this text says the Assyrian king did, that campaign was directed by his generals. Thus this text is better connected with Sennacherib after he came to the throne in 705 than with Sargon in 712.

For linguistic relations Na'aman has pointed out half a dozen phrases in this text that resemble most closely the phraseology employed in texts from the time of Sennacherib. They also contrast in some instances with the phraseology employed in the inscriptions of Sennacherib's successors. Na'aman's restoration of the damaged name of Hezekiah of Judah in lines 4 and 11 of this text makes good historical and linguistic sense out of it, whereas the previous identification of this king as Azriau of Yaudi in the time of Tiglath-pileser III no longer does.


The narrative pieced together in this way divides into two sections. The first ten lines deal with the conquest of Azekah in southwestern Judah. This locates the area in which the Assyrian army was operating at this time. The second ten lines deal with the conquest of a royal city in Philistia that Hezekiah had annexed. The name of this city is broken away at the beginning of line 11. Na'aman has suggested that the name of Gath appeared there originally. This suggestion makes good geographic and strategic sense.

The important feature of this text that dates its events later than 701 is its use of the name Anshar for Sennacherib's god. This name is used for Ashur, but it was not Ashur's own name. When a new edition of the Creation Myth was produced in Assyria after Sennacherib's conquest of Babylon in 689, the name of Anshar was taken from a god in one of the old Babylonian cosmogonie pairs, and it was applied to Ashur when he was substituted for Marduk in the story. In this way the gods came to owe their allegiance to Ashur. The same point was made in a relief cast for a door, which shows Anshar leading the gods against the powers of chaos.16 Beyond these two references, the name of Anshar is found only in inscriptions from Sennacherib that were used in the temple that was built at Ashur after the conquest of Babylon.17

During the reign of Sennacherib, therefore, the name of Anshar was only used for Ashur in texts that were written after his conquest of Babylon in 689. Since this text which describes a Palestinian campaign of Sennacherib employs the name of Anshar, it too should be dated after 689. H. Tadmor noted this problem and it was one of the main reasons why he attributed it to Sargon. "In view of this exceptional usage (of Anshar) we eliminate the possibility that our fragment refers to the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah in 701."18 This statement is correct as far as it goes, but Tadmor followed it up with the more problematic conclusion that for this reason this text should be attributed to a king other than Sennacherib.

Na'aman has corrected this interpretation by returning this text to Sennacherib. In so doing, however, Na'aman encountered the same problem that Tadmor did, namely, that the occurrence of the name Anshar should date this text sometime during the last eight years of Sennacherib's reign. Na'aman has argued that this text must be connected with Sennacherib regardless of its use of the name Anshar, but he left the problem of the use of that name unresolved.19

16 As Tadmor has noted, "In this document [the Anshar door relief] as well as in other building inscriptions of Sennacherib from Assur composed after the destruction of Babylon (689) and relating to the building of bït-akïtu in Assur (replacing the Babylonian original), Sennacherib is referred to as ëpiS salam Ansar-'the maker of the statue of AnSar.'" ("The Campaigns of Sargon II," 82).

17 Tadmor, "The Campaigns of Sargon II," 82. 18 Ibid. 19 On this subject Na'aman observed, "In our opinion, the regular historical texts (which


Na'aman's conclusion about dating this text to Sennacherib is also correct as far as it goes. But Tadmor has shown that if this text belongs to the time of Sennacherib it could come only from the last decade of his reign. Putting these two conclusions together indicates that this text comes from the time of Sennacherib, as Na'aman has pointed out, but that it comes from the last decade of his reign, as Tadmor has pointed out. It describes, therefore, a second campaign against Judah, which should be dated after 689 B.C.

Hydraulic Engineeríng

Hayim Tawil has recently examined the question of the historicity of 2 Kgs 19:24.20 Before he told Hezekiah of his coming deliverance, Isaiah cited some of the achievements of the Assyrian king. One of these boasts of Sennacherib is, "I dug wells and drank foreign waters, and I dried up with the sole of my foot all the rivers of Masor." Tawil holds that this reference to Masor is not a reference to Egypt, both for reasons of spelling and because Sennacherib never invaded Egypt. He connects it instead with "one of Sennacherib's major domestic royal achievements: the magnificent networks of water conduits that he constructed for his new capital, Nineveh."21

The first phase of this program to be completed was the Kisiri Canal. This ten-mile-long canal, which brought water from the Khosr River to Nineveh, was built in 703. With the expansion of Nineveh during the next decade;, however, this water supply was no longer adequate and the construction of another canal was required. In his second irrigation account, written in 694, the king boasted:

To explore the waters which are at the foot of Mount Musri, I took a road and climbed up with great difficulty. . . . (There) I saw streams and enlarged their narrow sources and changed them into spring-fed pools. To give these waters a course through the steep mountain I cut through the difficult places with pickaxes and directed their outflow on the plain of Nineveh. . . "22

use only Ashur) should not be applied to the problem of the spelling in our text and, even if a certain difficulty does remain [italics added], it definitely is not so serious as to cancel out the cumulative weight of the other evidence for the dating of the document to the time of Sennacherib" ("Sennacherib's Letter," 31). Na'aman returned to this subject in another study but he also left this problem unresolved there ("Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps," VT 29 [1979] 61-86.

20 H. Tawil, "The Historicity of 2 Kings 19:24 ( = Isaiah 37:25): The Problem of Ye ore MasÔr? JNES 41 (1982) 195-206.

21 Ibid., 196. 22 D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1924) 114-15.


This project was completed during the eponymy of Ilu-ittiya or 694 and it was also celebrated in the Bavian inscription that was inscribed in 690.

In summarizing these achievements of Sennacherib, Tawil has noted, "This astounding succession of hydraulic engineering and incomparable networks by which Sennacherib transformed the barren environment of his new capital Nineveh into a garden of almost paradisaic fertility were (quoting Sennacherib) 'to the astonishment of thé nations.'" From this Tawil concludes that the waters of Masor in 2 Kgs 19:24 "refers historically to Sennacherib's second outstanding irrigation account: the Mount Musri operation, dating from the year 694 B.C.E."23

This conclusion carries obvious chronological implications for Sennacherib's campaigns to Palestina In 701 Isaiah could not have referred to the waterworks from Mount Musur that were not cut until 694. The logical implication of these relations is that Isaiah's speech, and Sennacherib's campaign during which that speech was given, should be dated some time after that canal was cut, after 694. Although he does not come down definitely in favor of the two-campaign theory, Tawil has noted this implication, "[This conclusion] may be further evidence for those who advocate the theory of Sennacherib's second campaign against Hezekiah in the year 689/688 B.C.E."24

III. Palestine

The New Text

The text dealt with here has become new in terms of its potential historical associations because of two recent discoveries about it. This is the Adon Papyrus, which was found during excavations at Saqqarah in Egypt in 1942. Only the right side of this text has been preserved and this part has suffered considerable damage. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the text remains.

The first full treatment of the Adon Papyrus was published by A.Dupont-Sommer in 1948.25 His treatment, and the modifications of it that were proposed by H. L. Ginsberg the following year,26 set the tone for all subsequent studies of it. In this view, the letter is seen as an appeal from a king Adon to pharaoh to send troops to protect him from the king of Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar. The troops of the king of Babylon had reached Aphek in the coastal plain of Palestine by the time the letter was written. The name of the city where Adon rule is broken away, but it has commonly

23 Tawil, "Historicity," 197. 24 Ibid., 204. 25 A. Dupont-Sommer, "Un papyrus araméen d'époque saïte découvert à Saqqara,"

Semitica 1 (1948) 43-68. 2 β H. L. Ginsberg, "An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters," BASOR 111 (1948)

24-27.


been suggested that it was located in Philistia, perhaps at Ashkelon.27 Given these contents, the text has been dated to one or another of Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns to Palestine that took place in the last few years of the seventh century, which are so well known from his chronicle.28

This understanding of this text now requires some revision. These developments have come first from B. Porten's examination of the papyrus in Cairo in November 1978.29 When he turned the text over he was surprised to find a line of Demotic written on it. Consultation with leading Demoti-cists led to the conclusion that this docket contains the name of the Philistine city Ekron. Thus, the city from which Adon wrote has been identified.30

From this same study Porten discovered that a phrase toward the end of the last legible line of this text read spr sndwr. This he has translated as "the letter of Sindur." This reading is quite clear in the photographs and it is undoubtedly correct. Porten's lecture on this text at the University of Michigan called this phrase to the attention of C. Krahmalkov. Krahmalkov then followed up Porten's article on the Adon Papyrus with a short note of his own on it.31

Krahmalkov has called attention to the fact that this name of sndwr correlates well with that of Sanduarri, king of Kundu and Sizu, a rebel against Assyria who finally was defeated and executed by Esarhaddon in 676.32 This identification makes good phonetic and historical sense out of a phrase that was unintelligible in the context of the late seventh century. Thus, the Adon Papyrus should now be redated to the early seventh century.

Krahmalkov has added some support to his interpretation by reconstructing the name of Sennacherib at the end of the last line, where the last legible letters read sn[ . . . ] . For Sennacherib's activity referred to here Krahmalkov has reconstructed the verb "intercepted." Thus he reads this line: "as for the letter of Sanduarri Senn[acherib has intercepted it. . ] ." Although the final proof for this proposal has been broken away from the papyrus, the reconstruction is a reasonable one.

For the historical context stemming from these observations, Krahmalkov has connected this text with Sennacherib's Palestinian campaign of 701. In this case Adon was the unnamed king of Ekron mentioned in Sennacherib's annals as the one whom he deposed when he returned the Assyrian

27 For references to the cities previously proposed for this break see B. Porten, "The Identity of King Adon," BA 44 (1981) 41.

28 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (London: British Museum, 1961) 67-71.

29 Porten, "The Identity of King Adon," 41. 30 Ibid., 42-45. 31 C. R. Krahmalkov, "The Historical Setting of the Adon Letter," BA 44 (1981) 197-98. 32 ANET 290-92.


loyalist Padi to his throne there.33 In this case the letter would have been written to Pharaoh in 702 by Adon while he still ruled in Ekron. This context that Krahmalkov has reconstructed runs into some difficulty here, for it is the king of Babylon who is mentioned in the fourth line of the text.

To explain this difficulty Krahmalkov calls into question the reconstruction of hyV ("army, forces") at the end of the third line. These forces have previously been seen as the subject of the verb "seized" in the fifth line. Krahmalkov suggests that the word "messengers" should be reconstructed instead at the end of the third line. For him the king of Babylon was Merodach-baladan, who sent ambassadors to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:12-19). In this case the verb "seize" might refer to instructions to the anti-Assyrian kings of Palestine on how to treat their pro-Assyrian colleagues. This is just what happened to Padi of Ekron.

Brilliant as the suggestion is to connect this text with Sanduarri and his times, the explanation for this difficulty leaves something to be desired. That Sennacherib was going to march to Palestine in 701 may not have been evident to Merodach-baladan in 702. Adon's request for troops is pressed in urgent terms, which makes the threat it refers to sound more imminent than a year away. The plural verb "seize" in line 5 fits well with similar forms in line 4, where they follow the reference to the king of Babylon. Thus, the word "forces" is more likely to have been the subject of all of these verbs at the end of line 3.

There is also a chronological problem in dating this reference to Sanduarri in 702. The references to Sanduarri known from the inscriptions of Esarhaddon date to the mid-670s. Dating this letter in 702 separates it from that historical context by a quarter of a century. Although Sanduarri might have reigned that long, the shorter the length of time between Adon's ally sndwr and Esarhaddon's enemy Sanduarri, the more likely it is that they were the same individual.

Another date can be suggested for this text which also maintains its linkage of Sennacherib and Sanduarri with Adon, that is, that it was written during Sennacherib's second campaign to Palestine. Since Sanduarri was subdued by Esarhaddon early in his reign, we may expect that his hostility toward Assyria extended back into the reign of Sennacherib. It is chronologically preferable, however, to look toward the end of Sennacherib's reign for such a connection rather than to its beginning. In this case the identification of Adon's sndwr with Sanduarri remains intact and the suggestion that the name of Sennacherib followed the reference to him in Adon's letter still is reasonable. Since no other kings of Ekron are known from this period besides Padi, Adon fits as well on the throne there in 688 as he does in 702.

Adon's reference to the king of Babylon requires further explanation. A

33 Ibid., 287-288.


better explanation for it is available from 688 than 702. The major historical event of the Near East in the preceding year, 689, was Sennacherib's conquest and destruction of Babylon.34 With the completion of this project Sennacherib personally assumed the kingship of Babylonia, as had Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V, and Sargon II before him. In so doing he took up the additional title of "king of Sumer and Akkad."35 The Synchronistic Chronicle and the Babylonian Kinglist A both list Sennacherib as the king of Babylon after this, the latter text assigning him eight years (689-681) in that office36

A western writer like Adon could, therefore, have legitimately referred to Sennacherib as the king of Babylon any time from 689 to 681. The turn of events that had just happened in the east thus provides an explanation for the use of this title in the west. That westerners were well informed on transitions in the east like this is demonstrated by the use of the name Pul (Babylonian Pullu) for the king of Assyria instead of Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kgs 15:19. Although it might seem unusual for Adon to have referred to the king of Assyria as the king of Babylon, we should look at this turn of events from his point of view.

As Sennacherib came into the land in 688, he came as the conquerer of the great city of Babylon the year before, and he sealed his claim to that conquest by taking over title to the kingship there. This undoubtedly made an impact upon his western foes beyond that of his original accession to the Assyrian throne seventeen years earlier. Sennacherib himself appears to have intended to convey the same impression by referring to his god with the Babylonian name of Anshar in reporting this campaign.

Other aspects of this text suggest a similar date or are at least consistent with it.37 Adon's mention of Aphek as a point of reference in an Assyrian campaign through Palestine has its best parallel as a location at which Esarhaddon stopped on his way to Egypt in 671.38 For Sennacherib to have stopped at the same place on his campaign in Palestine would have made good sense. I previously suggested that this text referred to a siege of Aphek by Nebuchadnezzar, but no archaeological evidence for such a conquest has been found at the site.39 On the basis of the closer parallel with the

34 On Sennacherib's campaigns against Babylon see now L. D. Levine, "Sennacherib's Southern Front: 704-689," JCS 34 (1982) 28-58. Of his destruction of Babylon Sennacherib stated, "I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood, that in the days to come the site of that city, and its temples and gods, might not be remembered; I completely blotted it out with floods of water and made it like a meadow" (Luckenbill, Annals, 17).

35 J. Oates, Babylon (London: Thames and Hudson, 1979) 120. 36 ANET 272-73. 37 Porten, "The Identity of King Adon," 39. 38 ANET 292. 39 W. H. Shea, "Adon's Letter and the Babylonian Chronicle," BASOR 223 (1976) 61-63;

M. Kochavi, "The History and Archaeology of Aphek-Antipatris: A Biblical City in the Sharon Plain," BA 44 (1981) 83.


occurrence of this site on the route of Esarhaddon's march, I now see this reference to Aphek as simply referring to it as a way station in the course of Sennacherib's campaign.

This new view of the Adon Papyrus depicts a different political picture from what earlier interpretations have proposed. Sennacherib's army had marched as far south as Aphek in the Plain of Sharon. Adon, the king of Ekron, received this news and relayed it to pharaoh in Egypt. Knowing that he would be a target of attack for his anti-Assyrian activities, Adon appealed to pharaoh for military assistance. The final bit of news transmitted concerns Sanduarri, a rebel against Assyria whose kingdoms of Kundu and Sizu were located in Anatolia. A letter of his, evidently sent to rebels farther south, apparently had been intercepted by Sennacherib.

Some final questions may be asked about this text. Who was the pharaoh to whom this letter was addressed? This text has been dated here in 688. Since Tirhakah came to the throne of Egypt in 690, he should have been the pharaoh to whom it was addressed. Did he answer the letter, and, if so, was his answer positive or negative? 2 Kgs 19:9 may offer some assistance here. It tells of the appearance of an Egyptian army led by Tirhakah in Palestine during the course of Sennacherib's (second) campaign there.

Why did Tirhakah set out for Palestine on this occasion? There is no biblical evidence to indicate that Hezekiah summoned him or expected him. Someone other than Hezekiah may thus have summoned him. With this new information from the Adon Papyrus we have evidence that Adon of Ekron requested such assistance at this time. There is a possibility, therefore, that the arrival of Tirhakah was the result of this letter of Adon, in which he requested Egyptian troops. In that case this letter may refer to more than just an event which occurred contemporaneously with that which is described in the biblical narrative It might even be related as the cause for the historical effect that is recorded in 2 Kgs 19:9, the arrival of Tirhakah's troops in Palestine during the course of Sennacherib's campaign.

Charíot Technology

This line of information comes from reliefs that were recovered from Nineveh, but they depict a development in military technology that took place in Palestine. Hence, it has been classified under that latter geographical category here. The reliefs in question are those of Sennacherib which depict his conquest of the Judahite city of Lachish. If the reference in 2 Kgs 19:8 to the movement of Sennacherib's troops from Lachish to Libnah belongs to a second campaign, that would imply that Lachish probably fell to him during that second campaign. It is of interest to note in this connection, therefore, the type of Judahite chariot the Assyrian artist has depicted in this scene. In his study of Assyro-Israelite relations Julian Reade has described this relationship this way:


By about 700 most Assyrian chariots held three or even four men, and they were correspondingly larger than earlier models. . . . Now the Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum which show the capture of Lachish in 701 include a scene which probably represents booty taken from the local governor's palace. There are two fine incense-burners or offering-stands; then a throne; and a bundle of scimitars. In addition there is the governor's chariot, and it is virtually identical with the Assyrian chariots of the same data If the Lachishites had used a distinctive type of chariot, it is probable that the Assyrian artists would have indicated its distinctive features with their usual care, but since this is the same as the Assyrian type, it seems that the Lachishites were indeed using efficient up-to-date models. Military technology travels fast.40

If these reliefs come from a second campaign, then perhaps the adoption of this new military technology was not quite so instantaneous. Having seen such chariots in operation during Sennacherib's first campaign, the Judahites would have had time to prepare some of their own models of that type in time to meet the onslaught of the second campaign a decade later.

IV. Egypt

The New Text

Just as Assyriologists have made progress by redating texts, so Egyptologists have also been able to make progress in a similar fashion. The case in point here involves an inscription that formerly was attributed to Sheshonk I, the biblical Shishak (1 Kgs 14:25). P. Vernus has reexamined this inscription and attributed it to Tirhakah.41 Working from this new date A. Spalinger has gone on to study Tirhakah's foreign policy toward western Asia in the light of this inscription.42

This inscription conveys a long poetic speech of Tirhakah to the god Amun. It was inscribed on the back of the annals of Thutmose III, which enabled Vernus to organize it into its original columns. This text opens with Tirhakah's statement of his confidence in Amun's ability to intervene in human affairs and a reflection upon how he had helped him previously. Next comes a series of general requests that concludes with Tirhakah's statement of his desire to rule over all. Tirhakah then promises to do what no pharaoh has done before (col. 11) and prays to be rescued from bitterness and misery (col. 12). Finally, the inscription reaches its peak: "You will

40 J. Reade, "Mesopotamian Guidelines for Biblical Chronology," Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 (1981) 5.

41 P. Vernus, "Inscriptions de la troisième période intermédiaire (I): Les inscriptions de la cour péristyle nord du VIe pylône dans le temple de Karnak," BIFAO 75 (1975) 13-66.

42 A. Spalinger, "The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest," Chronique d'Egypte 53 (1978) 22-47.


repulse for me the land/people of . . ." (cols. 14-15) and its important remark "Let me do it with your tribute of Khor which has been turned aside from you" (col. 16).43

Spalinger's summary of the political significance of this text is: "Control of the Asiatic lands has, in some manner, been lost . . . and Taharqa is to blame. . . . A future action is contemplated by Taharqa owing to some failure of his in the past. Future events are predicted: 'You will repulse for me' (col. 11) and 'the lands (??) which do not belong to me, place them under my domination (col. 10).'"44

In essence, this powerfully written yet very indirect composition presents Taharqa's version of a debacle, the significance of which climaxes in the sixteenth column wherein the king announces to Amun that the territory of Khor no longer sends its tribute to Egypt. The previous fifteen columns set out Taharqa's explanation of this disaster: something went wrong abroad. As it could not have been Amun who caused the plans to fail, and as Taharqa is equally unwilling to implicate himself, then it must have been the fault of the plans themselves. . . . In conclusion, this inscription from Taharqa's reign must have been written very soon after a debacle in Asia (most probably in Palestine) but before another offensive: Taharqa directly indicates that he will resume his campaign if Amun is willing.45

Spalinger's conclusions about the nature and connections of this inscription seem sound. The problem then is to determine when the events to which it refers took placa Both Vernus and Spalinger date the composition of this inscription to a time around 675.4e The military resurgence planned by Tirhakah according to this inscription could then be connected with his defeat of Esarhaddon's army in 674/3, even though the Babylonian Chronicle indicates that this battle took place in Egypt.47 The question then is, When did Tirhakah's earlier defeat by the Assyrians in Syro-Palestine implied by this text take place? Vernus connects this turn of events with Esarhaddon's subjugation of Phoenicia in 677/6, whereas Spalinger connects it with Esarhaddon's campaign to the town of Arsa on the "Brook of Egypt," when he staked out his claim to Syro-Palestine in 679.48

The problem with both of these interpretations is that the relevant Assyrian texts make no mention of any contact with Egyptian troops during either of these campaigns. The first mention of any contact of this nature during the contemporary reigns of Tirhakah and Esarhaddon comes from

43 Ibid., 32. 44 Ibid., 30. 45 Ibid., 31, 33. 46 Vernus, "Inscriptions," 45-46; Spalinger, "Foreign Policy," 43. 47 ANET 302. 48 Vernus, "Inscriptions," 42-43; Spalinger, "Foreign Policy," 43.


the Babylonian Chronicle, which indicates that the Egyptians defeated the Assyrians in Egypt in 674/3.49 The first Assyrian reference to contact of this nature comes from the account of the campaign of 671, during which the Assyrians defeated the Egyptians in Egypt.50 No specific and direct statement is known from either Egyptian or Assyrian sources to indicate that these forces ever clashed in Syria or Palestine during the time that Tirhakah ruled contemporaneously with Esarhaddon. The lack of a reference to such contact during the Assyrian campaigns of 679 and 677 indicates that, in all probability, contacts of this nature did not take place then.

Since the Assyro-Egyptian military contact in Palestine that is proposed by Spalinger on the basis of this new text of Tirhakah did not take place during the reign of Esarhaddon, we should look to an earlier period. That takes us back to the time of Sennacherib, whose last decade of reign, which ended in 681, was contemporaneous with the first decade of Tirhakah's reign, which began in 690. Since the new Assyrian text of Sennacherib discussed above indicates that he did campaign in Palestine during the last decade of his reign, after his conquest of Babylon in 689, that raises the possibility that his army came into contact with Tirhakah's army there and then. The reference in 2 Kgs 19:9 to Tirhakah's incursion into Palestine thus constitutes a source from that region which is the only known reference to him that is historically compatible with what has been expected of him on the basis of the new Karnak inscription. Although this Egyptian evidence is not as specific as the Assyrian evidence is, it does suggest that the contact referred to by 2 Kgs 19:9 could well have been that to which the Karnak inscription refers.

Chronology

Egyptian chronology for the Twenty-fifth Dynasty has undergone increasing refinement and the more precise dates now available pose a serious problem for the theory that Sennacherib campaigned in Palestine only once, in 701. This problem arises from the dates for the reigns of the two kings who preceded Tirhakah. From the studies of Spalinger, K. Baer, and F. J. Yurco, it has now become established that Shabako conquered Lower Egypt in 712.51 This conquest was completed by Year 2 of his reign; hence, his accession to the throne in Napata occurred in 713. The highest date from Egyptian inscriptions for Shabako falls in the tenth month of his fifteenth year. From this Yurco concluded, "With a reign of 14 full years and a

49 ANET 302. 50 Ibid., 292-93. 51 Spalinger, "The Year 712 B.C. and its Implications for Egyptian History," Journal of the

American Research Center in Egypt 10 (1973) 95-101; K. Baer, "The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the Chronology of Dynasties XXII to XXVI,- JNES 32 (1973) 7, 25; Yurco, "Sennacherib's Third Campaign," 221.


fraction of his 15th, his death must have fallen in 699/8."52

Shabako was succeeded on the throne by Shebitku. The problem for Tirhakah arises here. According to Kawa Stela IV, it was Tirhakah's brother Shebitku who called him to Lower Egypt for the first time.53 In his description of that course of events Tirhakah ascribes the full pharaonic titulary to his brother. In other words, Shebitku had to be on the throne as full pharaoh before Tirhakah ever traveled down the Nile to Lower Egypt. Obviously he could not have traveled on to Palestine before that time. But Shabako, the predecessor of Shebitku, did not die until at least two years after Sennacherib's campaign to Palestine in 701. If the succession from Shabako to Shebitku was direct and successive, therefore, it is chronologically impossible that Tirhakah could have gone to Palestine as early as 701.

Yurco is the one scholar who favors the one-campaign theory who has dealt with this largely unrecognized but serious problem. Faced with these chronological facts, Yurco hypothesizes that there must have been a co-regency between Shabako and Shebitku, to get Shebitku on the throne by 701 so that he could send Tirhakah to Palestine54 But there is no Egyptian inscriptional evidence for such a coregency, as both he and W. J. Murnane acknowledge.55 In other words, this Egyptian coregency is a creation of the historical demands of the one-campaign interpretation of 2 Kings 18-19. On the other hand, none of these chronological data from the reigns of Shabako, Shebitku, or Tirhakah raises any problems if the campaign in which Tirhakah participated occurred after he came to the throne in 690.

V. Conclusion

The historical problems encountered with the text of 2 Kings 18-19 have not been resolved by the explanations offered to reconcile them with the theory that Sennacherib campaigned in Palestine only once, in 701. When 2 Kgs 18:13-16 is compared with 2 Kgs 18:17-19:36, the actions of both Hezekiah and Sennacherib appear contradictory if they all occurred during one campaign. Nor do the Judahite cities named as Assyrian targets there make good strategic sense when they are compared with the Philistine cities named by Sennacherib's annals, if they are correlated with the time the Egyptian army appeared on the scene of action. On the surface, reference to Tirhakah as king of Egypt in 2 Kgs 19:9 poses a further problem, since he did not come to the throne of Egypt until 690.

These problems have led to the theory that Sennacherib campaigned in

52 "Sennacherib's Third Campaign," 221. 53 F. L. Macadam, The Temples of Kawa: I. The inscriptions (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1949) 14-21. 54 Yurco, "Sennacherib's Third Campaign," 222, 225, 228-30. 55 Ibid., 221; W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Studies in Ancient Oriental

Civilization, 40; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) 189.


Palestine a second time later in his reign, but further support for that theory has been lacking until recently. New support for this theory has come recently from an Assyrian text previously dated to Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II but now attributed to Sennacherib, a Palestinian text previously dated in the time of Nebuchadnezzar but now datable to the time of Sennacherib, and an Egyptian text previously attributed to Sheshonk I but now attributed to Tirhakah. The Assyrian text is the most specific, the Palestinian text is intermediate in terms of level of specificity, and the Egyptian text is the least specific or most general in terms of the historical connections of its contents.

The divine name used by Sennacherib in the new Assyrian text, which tells of his conquest of two Palestinian cities—Azekah and Gath—was used by him only after his conquest of Babylon in 689. This text should, therefore, be dated after 689 also. The letter from Adon of Ekron to pharaoh mentions a letter from Sanduarri, who ruled in Anatolia in the times of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and this connection dates Adon's letter in the early seventh century. It also tells of the arrival of the king of Babylon and his forces at Aphek in Palestine by the time he wrote. The title king of Babylon fits Sennacherib satisfactorily here if this letter is dated after his conquest of Babylon in 689. Tirhakah's new inscription refers to some unspecified reverse that he suffered in Syro-Palestine. Lack of a knowledge of any other military action of his there with which to connect such a reverse suggests that it is best connected with the Egypto-Assyrian encounter implied by 2 Kgs 19:9. Since Tirhakah carries the full royal titulary in this inscription, this encounter should be dated some time after his accession in 690.

Further evidence that complements these texts in support of a second campaign comes from sources from the same three areas. Isaiah's knowledge of one of Sennacherib's great waterworks projects that was carried out in 694 is implied by 2 Kgs 19:24. This in turn implies that Isaiah's speech and the campaign during which it was given should be dated later than 694. An Assyrian-type chariot depicted as used by the Judahites when Lachish was conquered by Sennacherib fits best with its development in Judah between the first and second campaigns there. New knowledge of the more specific details of the chronology of the Twenty-fifth Egyptian Dynasty makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Tirhakah to have gone to Palestine as early as 701.

The three lines of evidence previously cited, these three new texts, and these three new lines of supplementary evidence all point in the direction of the same conclusion: that Sennacherib did conduct a second military campaign to Palestine after his campaign there in 701. This campaign should be dated after the fall of Babylon in 689; and, since Hezekiah died in 686, 688/7 is a reasonable date to suggest for this second campaign. The narrative of 2 Kings 18-19 should thus be divided between 18:13-16 as a


recitation of events that occurred during the first campaign and 18:17-19:36, which refers to events that took place during the second campaign.

The texts now available which fit best with this second campaign can be related to each other to suggest the course of that campaign. Upon his arrival in southern Palestine Sennacherib stopped at Aphek as a way station, according to Adon's letter to pharaoh. From there he turned inland to attack Azekah in Judah first. Then he traveled down the Elah Valley to attack Gath, which Hezekiah had taken over and fortified. These two targets of attack are referred to in the new Assyrian text of Sennacherib. From Gath he moved on farther south to attack Lachish, according to 2 Kgs 18:17-19:7. Following his conquest of Lachish he went on to besiege Libnah, according to 2 Kgs 19:8.

What Sennacherib appears to have been doing from a strategic standpoint in his sweep along this line of Judahite forts from north to south was to cut off the peripheral defense line of the country. From his next-to-last position in this line of attack he sent his embassy to Jerusalem to demand Hezekiah's surrender. From the last position in this line he turned west to meet the oncoming Egyptian army under the command of Pharaoh Tirhakah (2 Kgs 19:9). The biblical account and Herodotus (2.141) combine to suggest that at this juncture Sennacherib's forces suffered a reverse other than through direct combat with arms. Following this reverse Sennacherib gathered up his troops and returned to Assyria (2 Kgs 19:36).

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

sennacherib's second palestinian campaign

Documents

ten lines

early seventh

military technology

egyptian sources

foreign policy

phraseology

main elements

2d ed