A relevant scope . . .
The Adventist
Church had two times the Sabbath-School series by the same author and the same
Sabbath School director published with the denial of the Two Campaign Theory,
first in 2003 and secondly in 2021 with an exact unaltered, unedited, unchanged
view that there was just one event in 701 BC and everything written in the
Bible must be dumped here.
The
Two-Campaign Theory discussed so many times by Adventist scholars in the
1950-1990’s was done because of the critical science who first of all rejects
the descriptions of Scripture as legitimate and authoritative sources for
history of the past and secondly, because they wish to say that the Assyrians
spoke better truth than Isaiah did. Since they do not speak of two campaigns to
Jerusalem by Sennacherib, so there were no two. The Bible is wrong and the two
descriptions is a mixed and confused account of that event. Two descriptions
but one event.
As an honors
student at Stellenbosch Unveristy, an Israeli scholar came to talk about the
same topic. Sadly to say, even though he read Hebrew very well, unless you are
serious to seek the truth, you will end up with nonsense. He advocated the one
event two mixed/faulty descriptions to us in the large lecture hall. At the end
I raised my hand and asked him what about the concept of two campaigns and two
descriptions? He admitted that he heard about it but did not want to elaborate
on it.
Hezekiah
according to the Bible was friendly to Assyria and paid money to them. Hezekiah
according to the Bible was “rebellious” and had to bring Isaiah in because of
stress. Sennacherib heard Tirhaka came from Egypt and run. Sennacherib was
obnoxious and 185 000 soldiers were struck by God.
These biblical
facts cannot be just swept under the carpet and let us go on not offending the
Canaanites and Baalists out there and just keep believing in the rest of the
Bible although we could not say something here. It is not that nobody
considered this idea before. Adventist scholars need to do more than scratching
on the surface. This is a note after the second time Sabbath School Quarterly
from the GC keeping exactly all errors unchanged after 18 years!
Note, the
author, 13th of February 2021
Sennacherib’s
Judaean Campaigns Updates
The Two-Campaign Theory was introduced, contrary to many
scholars and Universities' opinions, actually by R. Rogers in 1914 in a volume
dedicated to the 70th birthday of Julius Wellhausen. Since then the theory had
its ups and downs by consensus and more recently it seems that scholars do not
even want to discuss it.
My finding is that the view of Scripture of the scholar
determines the outcome of the product that the scholar is going to present.
Deleting or omitting any part of the pericopes relevant to the campaigns of
Sennacherib destroys the attempt to make sense of it.
Here is some updates of recent views on these matters.
1. Brill has brought out the book of William Gallagher in 1999
on Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah. In their announcement regarding the event
of the 701 BCE campaign, Brill claimed that the war of Sennacherib remained
obscure for modern historians. In a way they are right but also wrong. There
are details that we do not know. However, the obscurity of the available detail,
especially in the Bible, was made more obscure by those who deny the
historicity of the historical books of the Masoretic text and also Isaiah. This
was systematically done by Brevard Childs in 1973. His relecturing method applied Canonically, has done a lot of harm to
the historical investigation of the books of the Bible.
2. Gallagher utilized Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism,
translation problems, and
historiographical questions to address the issue. Unless a person is
grounded in the Word of God as measure of faith, unless a person protects the
Word of God against any onslaught that suggests emendation, deletion, omission,
or addition to the Word of God as represented in the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition, the conclusion will be lobsided, and obscure for them.
3. The Two-Campaign theory of Sennacherib, meaning two campaigns
dealing with Judah, is the best scenario that do justice not only to the
Assyrian incomplete accounts but also the Egyptian evidence without any need to
adjust, emend, omit, reallocate, re-edit and we may add Childs favorite method,
relecturing of the Biblical record.
4. Gallagher did this dissertation under the Assyriologist
Hermann Hunger and the Old Testament
scholar Georg Sauer.
5. Gallagher divided his attention into two parts: a) discussion
of Isaiah 21:1-22:14; 10:5-19; and
14:4b-21 to establish the historical background. It sounds very historical
but as we will se later,
"historically" is actually a surprise word to use. He refuse to
discuss the Two-campaign theory and that
raises major historical questions to the issue; b) discussion of the third campaign of
Sennacherib with Assyrian and Biblical sources, the inscriptions and 2 Kings 18:13-19:37 and
Isaiah 36-37.
6. Gallagher argued for an earlier date for Isaiah 21-22 from
the sixth century as critical scholars
in the past 150 years have argued for to an eighth century date. He connects
the oracle with Assyria's defeat of Elam
and Babylon at the battle of Kish in 704 BCE. He argues that the fall of the
Babylonians opened the way for the Assyrians to attack Judah.
7. Gallagher tries to fit in Isaiah 21:1-10 to the year 703 BCE
and Isaiah 22:15-25 to a little later but before the 701 BCE attack.
8. Gallagher feels that Isaiah 23 with the oracle against Tyre
dates to after 701 BCE when the
Assyrians reached Tyre.
9. Gallagher connects Isaiah 10:5-19 with 2 Kings 18:18-35 and
Isaiah 36:4-20.
10. He connected Isaiah 14:4b-21 with Sargon who died in 705
BCE.
11. Gallagher wants to apply Isaiah 10:5-19 to the events at 701
BCE with Sennacherib. Because
Sennacherib boasted that he planted parks and garden lands, Gallagher applies
Isaiah 10:16-19 to this event (Gallagher 1999: 87).
12. Gallagher wants to claim the historicity of 2 Kings
18:17-19:37 and he feels that they
accurately record events in 701 BCE.
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/2797_1084.pdf
13. He counted the plagues as genuine. He discounted the number
as historically false and also the mention of Tirhaka as an anachronism for the
year 701 BCE. Here is a very crucial crack in Gallagher's analysis and method
of analysis. Crucial aspects of history from Egypt that supports the Tirhaka
statement, is brushed aside as legendary.
14. Gallagher dismissed the viability of the Two-Campaign Theory
(Gallagher 1991: 8-9). He clearly said that he will not discuss it. This is
basically putting the Bible out of the
picture for a proper discussion.
15. Gallagher sources included Assyrian annals, bulls, reliefs;
biblical sources: 2 Kings 18-19 and
Isaiah 36-37 as well as 2 Chronicles 32; also Greek sources like Josephus,
and Herodotus; and of course,
archaeological sources. Gallagher is convinced that "all the sources can
be used to produce a coherent picture of the war" (Gallagher 1991: 2). The
problem is, how coherent is Gallagher when he dismiss Tirhaka data from the
biblical source as an anachronims and thus leave out Egyptian evidence from the
discussion?
16. How coherent can a position be if the historian is omitting
a major solution to the harmonizing of all sources (Two-campaign Theory) as
well as denying the historicity of
certain data in the biblical sources he is using?
17. Gallagher argued against modern scholars (like B. Childs
1973) allocation of Source A for 2 Kings 18:13-16) and Source B (2 Kings
18:17-19:37) but contends that the B source is not two parallel stories B1 of 2
Kings 18:17-19:9a, Isaiah 36-37; and B2 2 Kings 19:9b-35. He feels that the differences are too large
to do that. The entire B source in his opinion should be considered a
sequential narrative of the developing political and military crisis.
18. It is very important to highlight the Two-Campaign Theory (which
this researcher Van Wyk is also endorsing) here: We do not have two sources of
one event but two sources of two accounts brought together, not mistakenly but
placed sequentially. First event was in 701 BCE and the Second Event in 689-688
BCE. The first event recorded Hezekiah surrendering and the second event
recorded Hezekiah's rebellion. The first event is in 2 Kings 18:13-16 and the
second event is in 2 Kings 18:17-19:37. In this way, Gallagher is right, it is
not parallel stories of one event in 701 BCE and his complaint that there are
too many differences is correct. Modern scholars are wrong in this point. But,
Gallagher is wrong in trying to scoop all up for one event only, namely in 701
BCE.
19. Brevard Childs divided the biblical sources regarding the
campaign of Sennacherib in 1967 into two
Sources which has captured the attention of scholars for four decades: Source A
(2 Kings 18:13-16) which he sees as a unified narrative as annalistic in
origin; Source B1 (2 Kings 18:17-19a; and Isaiah 36-37) as well as Source B2 (2
Kings 19:9b-35) which he considered more heterogeneous, based upon a legendary
source and overly reflecting Deuteronomistic theology (JEDP theories) which has
exilic touches of Deutero-Isaiah (B. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis.
Studies in Biblical Theology. Second Series no. 3 [London: SCM Press,
1967]: 96-99. The ad hoc cutting and
pasting method with which this scholar operates strip the biblical source of
any historical relevance.
20. Contra Kenneth Kitchen who tries to keep to the historicity
of Tirhaka's involvement as mentioned, albeit confused in 701 BCE (!) Gallagher
1991: chapter 8, questions the historicity of Tirhaka here and wants to see it
anachronistic.
21. Childs said about Source B1: "The Dtr. redactor of II
Kings 19 not only stood within a circle of tradition, but he made creative use
of them to illustrate his own theology of history. Once again the author fused
older and newer elements into a whole. The B account of the Assyrian threat is
brought to a close by the prophecy of retreat and ultimate destruction of the
enemy. The fact that the death of Sennacherib occurred some twenty years after
his return is lost in his scheme. The impression of the author's being at a considerable
distance from the historical events of Sennacherib’s death in 681 is not removed
even by historical weight on the mention of Tirkhaka" (Childs 1967: 93).
22. Childs said about Source B2: "To summarize. The
analysis of the Bl account has pointed out the highly complex nature of the
traditions which make up the account. On the one hand, the study has shown a
large layer of the material which reflects ancient tradition with a genuinely
historical setting. On the other hand, we have seen also that newer elements
have been added into the account and have been formed into a unified story which
bears the stamp of the Dtr. author" (Childs 1967: 93).
23. Reading Tirhaka as historical in this text is considered by
Childs to be a simple-minded historical reading of the text (Childs 1967:
69-103 above note 10).
24. William Barnes 1986 (in his dissertation from Harvard
University on the same topic as William
Gallagher) admit that applying all of the B1 account as straight history at 701
BCE (e.g. Tirhaka) will bring much
haziness (Barnes, 1986: 143). He feels the redactor was apologetic because of
the reality that Sennacherib died a terrible death, that Judah was suffering at his hands, and that Tirhaka
later became really dominant 20 years later at
Palestine and Sennacherib declined in power that time and thus added
those Egyptian strength aspects to the
story [earlier in 701 BCE] to add to Yahweh's strength and intervention.
25. Whereas Gallagher (1999) believed the Tirhaka event is
legendary and an anachronism Barnes
(1986) believed it is a backreading of a real event circumstance (not event)
of Tirhaka's dominance in Palestine over
Sennacherib in general.
26. Whereas Gallagher (1999) refused to discuss Tirhaka Barnes
(1986) did.
27. Whereas Gallagher (1999) refused to discuss the Two-Campaign
Theory, Barnes (1986) did.
28. H. H. Rowley (1962) have rejected the Two-Campaign Theory
due to the start of the reign of Hezekiah at the fall of Samaria according to
one text in the biblical record (H. H.
Rowley, "Hezekiah's Reform and Rebellion," BJRL 24 [1962]:
395-431). Two-Campaign Theorists like Van Wyk here is pointing out that there
are two counting systems for Hezekiah's length of reign. It seems that Ahaz
visit to Damascus in 727 BCE upset a group of scribes so much that they started
to count the reign of the ruler from his birth [Hezekiah] while others counted
it from his ascension. That is why there are two systems in the book of Kings.
It is not contradictions and fits in harmoniously. Rowley thought that 2 Kings
18:13 is an error of "14" which should actually be "24".
Also Aharoni suggested that. H. Tadmor also wondered about this verse. Tadmor
ascribe the uneasiness of the systems to a redactors manipulation, a theory
that we do not find attractive. In our dealing it is authentic (H. Tadmor,
"The Chronology of the First
Templer Period: A Presentation and Evaluation of the Sources," The World
History of the Jewish People, First Series: Ancient Times, The Age of the
Monarchies: Political History. Vol. 4
Part 1. ed. Abraham Malamat [Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1979]: 44-60 and 818-820).
29. P. Ackroyd in 1974 wrote an article to reject the idea of
Childs and felt that the Deuteronomist in this Sennacherib's Third Campaign is
trying to foreshadow in the Babylonian
incidents of the envoys, the Babylonian exile, both prophetically and
legally (P. Ackroyd, "Babylonian Exile," SJT 27 [1974]: 29-52). This
is again a redactional thesis which is highly conjectural.
30. Whatever conjectures are to be used in this issue of the
Two-Campaign theory, they are to be uniting the Scriptures harmoniously and
sensible without doing injustice to inside and outside biblical sources. The
Two-Campaign Theory is the best in this regard.
31. H. Tadmor has indicated that 2 Kings 18:10 equates Hezekiah's
sixth year with the fall of Samaria in 723 BCE and that assumes that Hezekiah
started to reign in 727/726 BCE. This is correct. Tadmor also pointed out that
2 Kings 18:13 placed the 14th year of Hezekiah in 701 BCE. Here he is also
correct. However, Tadmor's explanation of Redactional tampering with the text
is not correct. Our Two-counting systems theory is a better solution that keeps
the Scripture authentic and intact.
32. William Shea (1985) has advanced the understanding of the
Two-Campaign theory by utilizing five important studies:
a. Anshar for Marduk replacement theory
That of Nadav Na'aman BASOR 214 (1974): 25-39 and also VT 29 (1979):
61-86 discussing a join between two cuneiform fragments in the British Museum
which he attributed to Sennacherib
(previously it was to Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II). There is a
problematic spelling of Anshar for the kings god instead of Asshur. This
spelling made H. Tadmor in 1958 deny that it should be attributed to
Sennacherib. Shea felt that this text should date after 689 when Sennacherib
conquered Babylon. The text is coming from Ashurbanipal's library in Niniveh
and may be a later copy of the original text which presumably remained in the
city of Ashur (view of William Barnes 1986: 165 probably from the advice of W.
Moran[?] his teacher). Anshar was especially used in the inscriptions of
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. That is why a later date is posed. Barnes wondered
if a later scribe did not substitute the earlier form by a later form in the
process of copying. In the Assyrian recension of the Enuma Elish, says Barnes
problably through W. Moran(?), there is evidence of a replacement of
"Marduk" as "Anshar". The objection of Barnes is actually
just a plus to the argument. Anshar is later than 701 BCE and Shea is correct
that should the text represent an authentic Sennacherib text, it must be later
than 701 BCE. The view of Shea for an Anshar replacement of Marduk after the
Babylonian conquest in 689 BCE makes sense.
b. Masor in 2 Kings 19:24 as Sennacherib's irrigation projects
until 694 BCE
Hayim Tawil in JNES 41 (1982): 195-206 suggested that the
reference to the rivers of Masor in 2
Kings 19:24 (Isaiah 37:25) should be connected to the Niniveh irrigation
project of Sennacherib. The project was
completed by the year 694 BCE. Dating Isaiah then after this event, the rest of
the campaign material must have been also later and thus support a possible 689
BCE invasion of Judah by Sennacherib. A very weak counterargument is posed by William
Barnes (Barnes 1986: 165 point 2) in which he dismiss the suggestion of Shea (indirectly
also Tawil) since relying on Childs he sees it also as an interpolation in Source B2, and thus "valueless".
The cut-paste-wastebasket method of literary criticism cannot do justice to any
historical analysis, even if it is a non-biblical source. We reject Barnes
objection.
c. King of Babylon = Sennacherib and the role of Sanduarri or
shndwr
Bezazel Porten BA 44 (1981): 36-52 has worked on the Adon Papyrus
in the Cairo Museum and found a line of demotic Egyptian on the verso that is a
reference to a king of the city of
Ekron. There is a reference of the king of Babylon coming to Aphek in
line 4 and they dated it to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Another scholar
(Charles Krahmalkov in BA 44 [1981]:
197-198) had a different view than Porten and dated it to the time of
Sennacherib. The letters sn[ ] remained
in the last part and Krahamalkov wanted to reconstruct Sennacherib here. In line 9 the name shndwr is seen as
Sanduarri, ruler of Kundu and Sizu who allied himself with the Sidonians
against Assyria and who was eventually executed by Esarhaddon in 676 BCE. Shea
maintained that if shndwr of the papyrus is indeed to be identified with Sanduarri,
then an early seventh century date is preferable to the late eighth century
date urged by Krahmalkov. Shea identified the king of Babylon in the text with
Sennacherib himself whereas Krahmalkov identified him with Merodach Baladan. We
know that when Sargon took Babylon he placed his own son Sennacherib on the throne
in 707 BCE two years before Sennacherib became ruler of Assyria. After becoming
ruler of Assyria there were on and off events with the rebel trying to regain
lost territory. A knowledge of Sennacherib as "king of Babylon" is
thus very possible. There is nothing odd to it.
d. Lachish chariot of Judah compare to Assyrian fashion which
needs time to imitate
Julian Reade indicated in an article on "Mesopotamian Guidelines
for Biblical Chronology" Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 (1981): 1-9, that the
chariot on the Lachish scene at Niniveh compares very well to the Assyrian
models of the same period. shea argued that imitating models and fashion would
take time and having seen the Assyrian ones in 701 BCE would have given the
governor enough time to let his Judeaean artisans imitate a similar one
available at the Second Campaign against Judah in 689 BCE.
e. Tirhaka with his Syro-Palestine military problems text
Anthony Spalinger in CdE 53 (1978): 22-47 discussed a publication
of Pascal Vernus of a Karnak text of Thutmosis III's annals which was inscribed
on the back by a text of Tirhaka and it
seems that there was probably some problems in his campaign in Syro-Palestine
(column 16). Some details are obscure. Shea indicate that there is no evidence
of a Palestine campaign of Tirhaka during Esarhaddon in 679 and 677 and thus
Shea suggested that this must be a reference to the 689 BCE campaign against
Sennacherib. Barnes objected against this conclusion of Shea by saying that 2
Kings 19:9 indicated that Tirhaka have truimphed.
33. If one consider the dilemmas in the Assyrian cuneiform
sources of Sargon II and Sennacherib there are three alternatives in this
issue. Scholars are left to select among three possibilities in this dilemma
and its discussions:
1. To accept only the Assyrian counting system, or one counting
system, as representative of the reality and as the only one operating in the
texts. This will imply that the texts don't mean what they say or it would mean
that human error was even reduplicated (canonized?). As a result the Babylonian
King List A IV 12-15 is computed under the Assyrian counting system and the
evidence from the Bellino cylinder K 1680 and its duplicate BM 123412 should be
glossed over. The Biblical text is maybe sometimes correct but some cuneiform
texts are just wrongly written (J. Brinkman, L. Levine, etc).
2. To accept only the Assyrian counting system as representative
of reality and as the only system operating in the texts. The texts are
accepted to have ambiguous data. The Bellino text and its duplicate should have
priority over the Babylonian King List. This will imply a revolution/reform of
the data to 703/2 B.C. for the third campaign and the conventional Biblical
computations as 701 B.C. should be ignored (so S. Timm).
3. To accept Van Wyk’s suggestion of two or more counting
systems as legitimately operating from two centers: Assyria and Babylon. To
view the Nimrud Prism mentioning the 9th Palu for the same event that is the
11th Palu in the Khorsabad Annals as evidence of these two systems. To accept
the fact that the Babylonian King List's scribe would have counted the years of
Sennacherib not from the death of his father, but from the date it is assumed
that his father made him the ruler of Babylon. It is not the purpose of the
Babylonian King List to be an estimation for the start or end of the reign of a
king. Instead, the years a ruler (Assyrian or Babylonian, king, governor or
rebel) ruled over Babylon are given. There is no need to play the cuneiform
texts off against each other, ignore one text and magnify another one. The
traditional Biblical computation for the date of the third campaign as 701 B.C.
is still functional and not in conflict with the cuneiform texts. However, a
balance of all data of the biblical text will demand another Second Campaign
later by Sennacherib against Jerusalem circa 689 BCE.
K. van Wyk “Moabite Seals and Historical Gleanings” in Squatters
in Moab. Berrien Center: Louishester publications, 1996, page 173ff.
34. It is interesting how the Third Campaign is described in
Niniveh. In ANET is a translation of it by Pritchard for those who cannot read
Akkadian. The kings of Amurru is simply listed: Menahem of Samaria; Tubalu of
Sidon; Abdiliti of Arvad; Urumilki of Gubal (= Byblos); Mitinti of Ashdod;
Budu-ilu of the house of Ammon; Kammusu-of Moab; Malik-rammu the Edomite. They
are all nicely listed one under the other. But when it comes to Hezekiah the
situation is more complex. One can find the name of Hezekiah surrounded by more
description in Column II lines 66 until Column III line 2. It will not be wrong
in my opinion to suggest that Hebrew composed this. He placed Hezekiah’s name
in the middle of the description. In Lines II:36 and III:2 the verb is made the
same. These verbs are placed at the end of the sentence to catch the eye. He
attempted to connect the two sentences by arranging it this way visually. He
did the same with lines 69 and 82 by placing the name of the country at the end
of the sentence with a copulative at the end in cuneiform. Lines 71 and 80 is
also arranged. Lines 72 and 81. Lines 73 and 79 are very similar. Lines 75 and
77 are both titles of gods, or AN = Dingir placed at the same spot in the
sentence relative to each other and binding the two sentences thus also
visually. In line 76 remaining, right in the center of all this, working down
systematically from both outer borders of the field, Hezekiah is placed center.
Why? A bird in a cage. His name is given and that he is the King of Judah. All
the links thus strap Hezekiah in a captive position in the center. There is a
chiastic structure used here for visual display that is not seen with elsewhere
with the other kings of this Third Campaign.
35. The reality of the Hezekiah seal.
Drawing by Koot van Wyk 28th of March 2019 35. My conclusion is very clear: As long as scholars are
ignoring the data of the Scriptures as trustworthy, as authentic data, they are
bound to run into problems. 36. 37. 38.