Nadav NA’AMAN

Biblica 81 (2000) 393-402

New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story
(2 Kgs 19,9b-35)

The biblical story of Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah has been discussed in a great number of books, articles and commentaries. The list of publications is so long that we may well wonder whether it is still possible — on the basis of the extant sources — to significantly advance our understanding of any aspect of the story.

        The majority of scholars agree that the text of Isaiah had its original context in Kings¹. B. Stade suggested that the account of Sennacherib’s campaign was built of two sources: a chronistic record (18,13-16) and two prophetic stories (18,17–19,9a.37; 19,9b-20.30-37)². His arguments were accepted by some early scholars (A. Šanda is an exception)³. B.S. Childs revised this suggestion and proposed that the first prophetic story (Account B₁) included 18,17–19,9a.36-37 and the second story (Account B₂) included 19,9b-35⁴. Most scholars adopted this revision, and scholarly disagreements have been confined largely to the problem of the original scope of the two prophetic stories, and in particular to the scope of Account B₂⁵.

        It is the purpose of this article to re-examine some elements in Account B₂ which have not been satisfactorily explained by scholars, in an effort to shed more light on the date and place in which it was composed. The results of this re-examination will also be applied to the discussion of Account B₁. I will not discuss the complicated problem of the original scope of the two stories, since it is external to this discussion. I will also try to avoid repetition of what has already been said by other scholars, and concentrate on some new suggestions that I should like to present.

_____________________
394

The List of Conquered Places in 2 Kings 19,12-13

        The key for dating Account B₂ (2 Kgs 19,9b-35) is the list of cities mentioned in vv. 12-13. The text runs as follows:

Did the gods of the nations save them whom my ancestors destroyed, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar? Where is the king of Hamath and the king of Arpad and the king of Lair, Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah?

        This text may be compared with 2 Kgs 18,33-34, which is part of the second speech of the Rabshakeh in Account B₁:

Did any of the gods of the nations ever save his land from the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? [ ]⁶. [Where are the gods of Samaria?]⁷. Did they save Samaria from me?

Hamath, Arpad and Samaria participated in the anti-Assyrian rebellion that broke out in Syria-Palestine upon the death of Shalmaneser V, when Sargon II ascended the throne in 722 BCE⁸. After he crushed the rebellion in 720 BCE, Sargon annexed Hamath and Samaria to the Assyrian territory. Arpad was an Assyrian province since 738 BCE and after the rebellion was probably re-organized⁹. Sepharvaim appears in 2 Kings 17,24 as the origin of settlers whom Sargon deported to the province of Samerina in his late years¹⁰, and is

_____________________
395

identified in the area of eastern Babylonia¹¹. It is mentioned before Samaria, the region where the deportees were settled. The text of 2 Kgs 18,33-34 refers to three cities that participated in the rebellion against Sargon in 720 BCE, and to a place in eastern Babylonia that was conquered by Sargon during his campaigns against Babylonia in the years 710-709 BCE¹². It is evident that the four toponyms mentioned in Account B₁ are drawn from the western and eastern campaigns of Sargon II, Sennacherib’s father.

        The list of cities in 2 Kgs 19,12-13 is almost entirely different from the list in 2 Kgs 18,33-34, and from the list of peoples settled by Sargon II in Samaria according to 2 Kgs 17,24. Most scholars agree on the identification of the places mentioned in vv. 12-13¹³. Some of these places (Gozan, Harran, Rezeph-Ras[appa and Eden–B|4t Adini) are located in northern Mesopotamia, and were conquered and annexed by Assyria in the time of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859) and the early years of Shalmaneser III (858-824). Why did the author of Account B₂ select places which were conquered and annexed hundreds of years before his time to exemplify the Assyrian conquests? Another group of places (Telassar, Lair, Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah) is probably located in eastern Babylonia. Again, why did the author include these remote and unimportant eastern places in his list of conquered towns? Hamath and Arpad are located in Syria, and their location and history differ from the other places in this list. The selection of these places requires an explanation, and we shall first examine some suggestions offered by scholars for this enigmatic list.

        H. Wildberger doubted whether the narrator had any clear idea about the time and circumstances in which these places fell to the hands of Assyria and suggested that the author simply expanded the list of Isa 36,19¹⁴. F.J. Gonçalves suggested that some cities are connected with the deportation to Samaria (Hamath, Sepharvaim, Ivvah), whereas Gozan is one of the places to which inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom were deported¹⁵. E. Ben Zvi assumed that v. 12 refers to places where deportees from the Northern Kingdom were settled, and v. 13 refers to places from which came the deportees who were settled in Samaria¹⁶. However, only one name (Gozan) is common to v. 12 and the list of Israelite deportees settled in Assyria (2 Kgs 17,6), and only two names (Sepharvaim and Ivvah/Avva) appear in v. 13 and the list of deportees to Samaria (2 Kgs 17,24)¹⁷. The assumption that the author of Account B₂ was better acquainted with the Assyrian deportations of

_____________________
396

the time of Sargon II than the Deuteronomist (the author of 2 Kgs 17,6.24) is unconvincing. Moreover, the text of vv. 12-13 refers to conquests rather than deportations, although deportees could have arrived from/at these places.

        S.W. Holloway suggested that Harran must be treated separately from all the other places mentioned in vv. 12-13¹⁸. He discussed at length the history and cult of Harran in the Neo-Assyrian period, and concluded that it is unlikely that an Assyrian referred to the cult centre of Harran as a city destroyed by his forefathers. Harran was conquered by the Babylonians in 610-609 BCE, and this is the background for its inclusion in the list of conquered places¹⁹. Adopting Hardmeier’s suggestion that the description of Sennacherib’s blockade of Jerusalem was patterned on the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 588 BCE²⁰, Holloway suggested that the inclusion of Harran’s name in Rabshakeh’s speech should be interpreted in the context of the 588 BCE war against the Babylonians.

        As for the other places, Holloway adopted the widely held view that Sennacherib boasted of the victories of his forefathers over them. He offered no explanation for excluding Harran from the list of places. Nevertheless, I believe that he was on the right track in suggesting that the conquest of Harran reflects the Babylonian campaigns of the years 610-609 BCE. It seems to me that the list of cities in vv. 12-13 reflects the conquests of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar in the late seventh century BCE, and that some of these conquests are mentioned in the Babylonian chronicles, the only source that we have for the emergence of the Babylonian Empire.

        Following is a discussion of the list of towns in light of this suggestion.

        (a) Harran held an important place in the late Assyrian empire. Sargon, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal built the city and its temple, and Ashurbanipal (668-631) nominated his younger brother as high priest (s$es$gallu) in the temple of Sin of Harran²¹. Ashur-uballit[, the last king of Assyria, ascended the throne in Harran in 611 BCE²². In the following year (610), the Babylonian army under Nabopolassar and the Median troops besieged Harran and captured it, and ‘carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple’. In the next year (609), the Babylonian garrison stationed in Harran was attacked by Assyrian-Egyptian troops, but fought back until the withdrawal of the attacking force²³.

_____________________
397

        According to the inscriptions of Nabonidus (556-539), the city of Harran suffered heavy damage and declined for many years, until he restored it to its former glory. The temple of Sin was plundered during the Babylonian conquest and the city was partly destroyed because of its prominent place in the late Assyrian Empire. The words ‘did the gods of the nations save them whom my ancestors destroyed’ in 2 Kgs 19,12 may allude to the destruction of Harran and the despoliation of its temples by the Babylonians²⁴.

        (b) After the conquest of Nineveh in 612 BCE, the Babylonian troops advanced westward, conquered Nas[ibin and brought a heavy booty and exiles ‘[from the lands of GN] and Rus[apu’²⁵. Rus[apu-Ras[appa is located in the Sindjar plain of Upper Mesopotamia and was the capital of an Assyrian province²⁶. Its identification with biblical Rezeph (res9ep) is self-evident.

        (c) In the following year (611) Nabopolassar marched against the city of Ruggulitu, captured it and killed its inhabitants²⁷. Ruggulitu is mentioned in the annals of Shalmaneser III as an important city of the kingdom of B|4t Adini, which he captured and annexed to Assyria (856 BCE)²⁸. In 611 BCE, about 250 years later, it was conquered and annexed by the Babylonians.

        In the following years Nabopolassar conquered all the Assyrian territories up to the Euphrates, so that in 607 he was able to cross the Euphrates and conquer the city of Kimuh~u (modern Samsat)²⁹.

        We may conclude that Nabopolassar conquered the cities of Gozan, Harran, Ras[appa and the land of B|4t Adini in the course of his conquest of Upper Mesopotamian in the years 612-610 BCE. Captives were taken from the conquered areas and settled in Babylonia. Among them were probably the Edenites, whom the Babylonians settled at Telassar-Til Aššuri.

        (d) Til Aššuri is located on the Diyala River, near the border between Babylonia and Media³⁰. Shilh~azi, a place near Til Assuri, is called by Tiglath-pileser III ‘fortress of the Babylonians’, and was probably a Babylonian fort on the border with Media. Babylonians apparently lived in Til Aššuri in the time of Tiglath-pileser III and worshiped Marduk, their national god, in the local temple. When the Babylonians regained their territories, they established their border with Media along the same line. Deportees from B|4t Adini were probably brought to this place, which must have been the central

_____________________
398

Babylonian city in this area, and these deportees are mentioned by the author of Account B₂.

        (e) The district (p|4h~atu) of Hamath was conquered by Nebuchadrezzar after he defeated the Egyptian troops in Carchemish (605 BCE)³¹. Arpad was captured in the course of this campaign. The combination of Hamath and Arpad is influenced by the references to the cities in Account B₁ (2 Kgs 18,34) and Isa 10,9. However, for the readers of B₂, the reference to the gods of Hamath points to its recent capture by Nebuchadrezzar, rather than to its conquest by the Assyrians a long time before (as correctly noted by Hardmeier)³².

        (f) Telassar, Lair, Sepharvaim and Ivvah are located in eastern Babylonia³³. The site of Hena is unknown, but it may possibly be sought in the same area³⁴. Sepharvaim and Ivvah (Avva) are included in the list of peoples settled by Sargon in the province of Samerina (2 Kgs 17,24), and Sepharvaim is mentioned in Account B₁ (18,34) (see note 6 above). Lair is identical with Lah~iru, a city located in northeastern Babylonia. It was an Assyrian province under the Sargonids, and is mentioned in numerous Neo- and Late-Babylonian texts³⁵.

        The late date in which Account B₂ was written and the author’s poor knowledge of the policy of Assyria is also revealed in 2 Kgs 19,17-18: ‘It is true, o YHWH, that the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, and put their gods to fire...’. It is well known that the Assyrians usually treated the gods of the conquered nations with respect. Often the divine statues were brought to Assyria, where they were installed in chapels until sent home, and only seldom were they actually destroyed³⁶.

        Is it possible that this passage reflects the Babylonian practice of destroying cult statues during their conquest of Assyria, and did the author again select an example familiar to his audience in order to illustrate his theology? In light of the long bitter enmity between Assyria and Babylonia, and the utter destruction of the royal cities of Assyrian (e.g., Nineveh, Assur, Calah, Dur-sharrukin, Arbela) by the Babylonian-Median armies, the suggestion is certainly possible. Unfortunately, we do not know enough about

_____________________
399

the Babylonian cultic policy towards the gods of Assyria. The main source we have is the Babylonian chronicle series, and although the chronicles appear objective, in reality their pro-Babylonian bias is revealed throughout their text³⁷. Even if the Babylonians destroyed Assyrian cult statues, the author would avoid mentioning it in his work.

        It is well known that an earlier Mesopotamian cult statue that has been lost could be fashioned only on the basis of some model of the lost one. T.G. Lee demonstrated that Nabonidus reconstructed the lost statue of Sin of Harran by the image that was engraved on Ashurbanipal’s cylinder seal, which he dedicated to the god Sin³⁸. This may indicate that Assyrian statues were indeed destroyed during the Babylonian conquest. The scope of destruction of cult statues is unknown, but the fact that the kings of Babylonia never mentioned the fate of captured Assyrian statues may indicate that the author of Account B₂ referred to events that happened not long before his time.

The Date and Place of Accounts B₁ and B₂

        An analysis of the place names mentioned in Account B₂ indicates that its author knew some details of the Babylonian campaigns to northern Mesopotamia and Syria in the years 612-605 BCE. Moreover, he had specific knowledge of certain places in eastern Babylonia, such as the settlement of the Edenites in Telassar-Til Aššuri and the sites of Lah~iru and Hena. The attachment of Ivvah and Sepharvaim — the origin of the settlers in the province of Samerina — to Lah~iru and Hena may suggest that he was aware of their location in eastern Babylonia. We may safely assume that the author of Account B₂ lived in eastern Babylonia, where some other deportees from the places he mentioned lived, and they must have been his sources for the Babylonian campaigns to northern Mesopotamia.

        Noteworthy also is the reference to the gods of the nations ‘whom my ancestors destroyed (s$ih9a4tu= )’ (v. 12). Ostensibly, the author is referring to Sennacherib’s predecessors, the kings of Assyria. Assuming that, in reality, the text refers to the kings of Babylonia who conquered these places, the term ‘my ancestors’ indicates that Account B₂ was written after the time of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar, i.e., after 562 BCE. We may conclude that the author of the second prophetic story was a descendant of a Judean deportee living in Babylonia. He must have written his story after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, either in the time of the late Babylonian Empire or in the early Persian period. A date after the sixth century BCE is unlikely, since the author would then have drawn the historical episodes from more recent events, and the details of the Babylonian conquests in the late seventh century BCE would not have been kept in memory so accurately.

        The author of Account B₂ expanded and elaborated the early story of Sennacherib’s campaign and the ‘miraculous deliverance’ of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18,13-19,9a.36-37) in according with his experience in the new place and the message he was trying to convey to his audience, the Judean deportees in

_____________________
400

Babylonia. The updating of the list of conquered cities is part of his revision. He did not know much about the Assyrian conquests, which happened long before his time, apart from what he had read in the Deuteronomistic history. He therefore wrote a new list of places that were conquered not long before his time and were better known to his audience than the list of places that appears in Account B₁ (18,33-34). The exact historical background of the conquests and deportations was less important to him than the theological conclusions drawn from these events. The updated list of places suited his theological lesson of the helplessness of the foreign gods and the need to trust in YHWH in times of crisis and danger.

        The attribution of an exilic date for Account B₂ is commonly accepted among scholars, but my suggestions for the location of the author and a possible date for his composition are new elements in the discussion. The marked difference between the authors of Accounts B₁ and B₂ is worth noting: the former selected his examples of the Assyrian conquests from Sargon II’s campaigns, whereas the latter selected his examples from the Babylonian campaigns of the late 7th century BCE. In what follows, I will suggest two other differences between Accounts B₁ and B₂, which also indicate the enormous chronological gap between their respective messages.

        (a) The second speech of the Rabshakeh in Account B₁ (2 Kgs 18,29-35) underlines the difference between YHWH of Jerusalem and the gods of Samaria. It could have been written only in the pre-exilic time, when Jerusalem and the temple were still intact and the memory of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom was very much alive. The author of Account B₁ drew conclusions from the ‘miraculous deliverance’ of Jerusalem in 701 BCE and conveyed the message that Jerusalem was different from all recently conquered places, including Samaria, since YHWH guarantees its safety.

        The comparison between the fate of Samaria and Jerusalem is missing in Account B₂, having lost its validity after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE. Instead, the later author expanded the list of conquered places and contrasted the inability of their gods to protect their citizens with the power of YHWH to protect his people and their city.

        (b) A second point of comparison is the emphasis on Assyria’s power and impending threat in Account B₁, as against an abstract depiction of the enemy in B₂. Reading Account B₁, it is clear that the story was written when the memory of Assyria’s enormous military power and its threat to the existence of the Kingdom of Judah was still very much alive. In Account B₂, on the other hand, Assyria appears as an abstract power, representing more the concept of a strong military power than a concrete historical entity. The story will remain the same if we replace the name Assyria with the name of another power (e.g., Babylonia, Persia). Here only the theological messages are considered important, hence the arena for the scene and details of the situation are described in the shortest and schematic manner.

        Account B₁ was no doubt composed in the pre-exilic period. It seems to me that the author of 2 Kgs 18,13–19,9a.36-37 (the Deuteronomist) combined two early sources that were available to him: a chronistic text (the source of Account A), and a prophetic story of the ‘miraculous deliverance’ of Jerusalem (Account B₁). The chronistic text was written shortly after the conclusion of the Assyrian campaign, which is why its contents so accurately

_____________________
401

match the text of Sennacherib’s inscriptions³⁹. It may have been included in the so-called ‘chronicles of the kings of Judah’. The story was probably transmitted orally for some time, but was composed in writing at a time when the memory of the power and impending threat of Assyria to the very existence of Judah was still very much alive. The reference to Tirhakah ‘king of Egypt’ in connection with the Assyrian withdrawal from Judah (18,9a, 19,36) indicates that when the story was written, Tirhakah’s name was kept in memory in connection with the Assyrian-Egyptian struggle over the domination of Palestine⁴⁰. The vivid memory of the murder of Sennacherib by his sons (2 Kgs 19,37), including the names of the murderers, the circumstances of the murder, the place where they found shelter, and the name of Sennacherib’s successor, all point to a relatively early date of composition. The struggle of Tirhaka (690-664) with Assyria and the murder of Sennacherib (681) are the earliest possible dates for the composition of Account B₁, which could have been written at any time after these dates.

        Dating the composition of the Deuteronomistic history is disputed among scholars, and this is not the place to enter the discussion⁴¹. I have already suggested some arguments in support of a Josianic date of composition⁴², and will restate here my conviction that the early comprehensive history of Israel was written in the time of Josiah.

        The Deuteronomist combined the chronistic and narrative texts (Accounts A and B₁) into a continuous history and integrated them into his composition of the history of Israel. He worked the chronistic source and fitted it into the pattern of other closely related texts that described the campaigns of foreign kings and the payment of tribute (e.g., 1 Kgs 14,25-26; 2 Kgs 12,18-19; 15,19-20; 16,5.7-9). He copied almost verbatim the prophetic story, as he did with many other prophetic stories that were available to him⁴³. His main

_____________________
402

contribution to Account B₁ is the insertion of 2 Kgs 18,22, which he wrote in order to support and corroborate his description of Hezekiah’s cultic reform (18,4)⁴⁴. The note on Hezekiah’s cultic reform is the only place where a clear Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic features appears in the speech. It supports my suggestion that Account B₁ is a pre-Deuteronomistic prophetic story and that — like many other prophetic stories — it was integrated by the Deuteronomist into his work of the history of Israel.

        The Deuteronomist attached Account B₁ after Account A, and omitted any reference to the subjugation of Judah to Assyria from 701 BCE to the Assyrian retreat from Palestine, thereby depicting Hezekiah’s revolt against Assyria as an unqualified success. Anyone reading the Hezekiah-Josiah pericope in the Book of Kings would have to conclude that Judah was subjugated in the reign of Ahaz and was freed during the reign of Hezekiah. This is an exemplary case of the decisive role of the Deuteronomist in shaping the history of Judah according to his ideological and theological considerations, although he cited his two sources almost verbatim and added very little to the early texts.

        Account B₂ was written in Babylonia, either in the late years of the Babylonian Empire or the early Persian period, and in many ways is a revised theological version of the first account. The prophetic story of the ‘miraculous deliverance" of Jerusalem had a prominent place in the theology of the Deuteronomistic history, and the author of Account B₂ found it necessary to update it and fit its messages to the new experience of the Jewish community in Babylonia in the second half of the sixth century BCE⁴⁵.

Department of Jewish History Tel Aviv University Ramat Aviv Israel

Nadav NA’AMAN

SUMMARY

The article re-examines some elements in Account B₂ (2 Kgs 19,9b-35) in an effort to shed more light on the date and place in which the story was composed. It is suggested that the list of cities mentioned in vv. 12-13 reflects the conquests of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar in the late seventh century BCE. It is also suggested that vv. 17-18 may reflect the Babylonian practice of destroying cult statues during their conquest of Assyria. The author of Account B₂ was probably a descendant of a Judean deportee who lived in eastern Babylonia in the second half of the sixth century BCE. It is further suggested that the Deuteronomist combined chronistic and narrative early texts (Accounts A and B₁) and integrated them into his composition of the history of Israel.

© 2000 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES

¹ See recently, A.H. KONKEL, "The sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah", VT 43 (1993) 462-482; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, "Hezekiah and the Temple", Texts, Temples, and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran (eds. M.V. FOX et al.) (Winona Lake 1996) 47-52; M.A. SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids 1996) 477-483; R.E. PERSON, The Kings–Isaiah and Kings–Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252; Berlin 1997) 5-79.

² B. STADE, "Miscellen. 16. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21. Zu 18,13–19,37", ZAW 4 (1886) 172-186.

³ For early scholars who discussed Stade’s suggestion, see A. ŠANDA, Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt (EHAT 9; Münster 1912) II, 289-291; F.J. GONÇALVES, L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature Hébraïque ancienne (Louvain-la-neuve 1986) 351-354.

⁴ B.S. CHILDS, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 3; London 1967) 69-103; see GONÇALVES, L’expédition de Sennachérib, 355-363, 376-394, 449-455, with earlier literature.

⁵ See the list of authors cited by B.O. LONG, 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids 1991) 200; PERSON, Recensions, 76, n. 8. For recent detailed discussion of Account B₂, see GONÇALVES, L’expédition de Sennachérib, 449-477, with earlier literature.

⁶ Hena and Ivvah are missing from Isaiah 36,19 and the LXX of 2 Kgs 18,34, and many scholars suggested that they entered the text from 19,13. See H.M. ORLINSKY, "The Kings-Isaiah Recensions of the Hezekiah Story", JQR 30 (1939) 45; PERSON, Recensions, 18, 62, with earlier literature in n. 53. For a different opinion, see D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 50/1; Fribourg 1982) I, 411.

⁷ The end of the verse requires a preceding question, like the one found in the Lucianic and Vulgate versions. For the restoration, see C.F. BURNEY, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix (Oxford 1903; repr. New York 1970) 342; SANDA, Die Bücher der Könige, 260; ORLINSKY, "Kings-Isaiah Recensions", 46; M. ANBAR, "Kai_ pou= ei)sin oi( qeoi_ th=j xw/raj Samarei/aj et où sont les dieux du pays de Samarie?", BN 51 (1990) 7-8. For a different opinion, see J.A. MONTGOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1951) 503; BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle I, 411; PERSON, Recensions, 63 (note 69).

⁸ H. TADMOR, "The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study", JCS 12 (1958) 33-39; H.W.F. SAGGS, "Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria", Iraq 37 (1975) 14, line 20; A. FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen 1994) 89, line 25; 200-201, line 33.

⁹ It should be noted that among the six places mentioned in Isa 10,9, four participated in the anti-Assyrian alliance that fought Sargon in 720 BCE (Hamath, Arpad, Damascus and Samaria). Carchemish was annexed by Sargon three years later, in 717 BCE. Only Calno/Calneh (Assyrian Kullani), the capital of the former kingdom of Unqi/Patina that was annexed by Tiglath-pileser III in 738 BCE, is not mentioned in Sargon’s inscriptions. However, Sargon’s annals for the year 720 are broken and details of the anti-Assyrian rebellion in the west in this year are incomplete. Thus it is possible that Kullani/Calneh participated in the anti-Assyrian coalition that fought Sargon in 720 BCE, but is missing from the extent corpus of Sargon’s inscriptions. Isaiah could have deliberately selected six central cities conquered and annexed (or re-annexed) by Sargon II in his early years, since his audience/readers had heard of the conquest of the cities not long before the prophecy was said/written.

¹⁰ For the date of the Assyrian deportation to the province of Samerina, see N. NA’AMAN and R. ZADOK, "Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in the Light of two Cuneiform Tablets from Tel Hadid", Tel Aviv 27 (forthcoming).

¹¹ For the identification of places mentioned in 2 Kgs 17,24, see R. ZADOK, "Geographical and Onomastic Notes", JANES 8 (1976) 115-116.

¹² For the Babylonian campaigns of Sargon II, see J.A. BRINKMAN, "Merodach-Baladan II", Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (eds. R.D. BIGGS – J.A. BRINKMAN) (Chicago 1964) 12-27; FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons, 309-405.

¹³ For the identification of the list of towns, see ŠANDA, Die Bücher der Könige, 260, 272-273; G.R. DRIVER, "Geographical Problems", Eretz Israel 5 (1958) 16*-20*; ZADOK, "Notes", 113-124; GONÇALVES, L’expédition de Sennachérib, 458-461.

¹⁴ H. WILDBERGER, Jesaja (BKAT X/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) III, 1424.

¹⁵ GONÇALVES, L’expédition de Sennachérib, 462.

¹⁶ E. BEN ZVI, "Who Wrote the Speech of the Rabshakeh and when?", JBL 109 (1990) 89-91.

¹⁷ The city of Hamath mentioned in 2 Kgs 17,24, is located in eastern Babylonia (ZADOK, "Notes", 117-120), whereas the Hamath of 2 Kgs 19,13 is located in central Syria.

¹⁸ S.W. HOLLOWAY, "Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Implications for Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to Hezekiah’ in 2 Kings", The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (eds. S.W. HOLLOWAY – L.K. HANDY; JSOTSS 190; Sheffield 1995) 311-312.

¹⁹ HOLLOWAY, "Harran", 276-314 (especially 312-314).

²⁰ HARDMEIER, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40 (BEvT 79; München 1978) 392-408.

²¹ M. STRECK, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s II (Leipzig 1916) 250, lines 17-18.

²² A.K. GRAYSON, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5; Locust Valley 1975) 94-95, lines 49-50.

²³ GRAYSON, Chronicles, 95-96, lines 58-70; S. ZAWADZKI, The Fall of Assyria and the Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan 1988) 121-126.

²⁴ D. BALTZER, "Harran nach 610 ‘medisch’? Kritische Überprüfung einer Hypothese", WO 7 (1973) 68-95; A. BEAULIEU, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylonia, 556-539 B.C. (YNER 10; New Haven – London 1989) 58-61, 104-115; T.G. LEE, "The Jasper Cylinder Seal of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus’ Making of Sîn’s Statue", RA 87 (1993) 131-136; W. MEIER, "Nabonidus Herkunft", Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer (eds. M. DIETRICH – O. LORETZ) (Münster 1998) 245-261.

²⁵ GRAYSON, Chronicles, 94, lines 47-49.

²⁶ E. FORRER, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig 1920) 12;S. DALLEY, "A Stela of Adad-nirari III and Nergal-eres from Tell al Rimah", Iraq 30 (1968) 150-151; M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City 1988) 235.

²⁷ GRAYSON, Chronicles, 95, lines 56-57.

²⁸ FORRER, Die Provinzeinteilung, 25.

²⁹ GRAYSON, Chronicles, 97-98, lines 12-15.

³⁰ ZADOK, "Notes", 123-124; H. TADMOR, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem 1994) 72-73.

³¹ GRAYSON, Chronicles, 99, lines 6-10.

³² HARDMEIER, Prophetie im Streit, 404.

³³ For Sepharvaim and Avva/Ivvah, see ZADOK, "Notes", 115, 120-123.

³⁴ Some scholars suggested transposing the letters of Hena (He4na( ) and reading it (Anah, i.e., the city of (Anat (modern (A"na) located on the middle Euphrates. See ŠANDA, Die Bücher der Könige, 260; S.E. LOEWENSTAMM, "Hena", Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem 1954) II, 852 (Hebrew); WILDBERGER, Jesaja III, 1424. The city of (Anat was conquered by Nabopolassar when he subdued a rebellion that broke out in 613 BCE. See GRAYSON, Chronicles, 93-94, lines 35-36. However, there is no textual evidence for this suggestion, and we had better follow the MT and versions and assume that Hena is an unknown place in eastern Babylonia.

³⁵ J.A. BRINKMAN, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 B.C. (AnOr 43; Rome 1968) 178, n. 1093; R. ZADOK, Geographical Names according to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts (Repertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 8; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 7; Wiesbaden 1985) 208.

³⁶ M. COGAN, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (SBL.MS 19; Missoula 1974) 9-41; COGAN – TADMOR, II Kings, 236; cf. P.-E. BEAULIEU, "An Episode in the Fall of Babylonia to the Persians", JNES 52 (1993) 243-261.

³⁷ ZAWADZKI, The Fall of Assyria, 114-143; N. NA’AMAN, "Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631-619 B.C.)", ZA 81 (1991) 260-261.

³⁸ LEE, "Jasper Cylinder Seal", 131-136.

³⁹ For a good summary, see P.E. DION, "Sennacherib’s Expedition to Palestine", Église et Théologie 20 (1989) 5-25.

⁴⁰ J. von Beckerath suggested that Tirhakah could not have taken part in the 701 BCE campaign since he arrived in Palestine no earlier than 700 BCE, and possibly only in 696 BCE. See "Ägypten und der Feldzug Sanheribs im Jahre 701 v. Chr.", UF 24 (1992) 3-8; ID., "Die Nilstandsinschrift vom 3. Jahr Schebiktus am Kai von Karnak", GM 136 (1993) 7-9. However, the Egyptian chronology of the 25th Dynasty is still uncertain, as indicated by the new inscription of Sargon II discovered in Iranian Kurdistan. See G. FRAME, "The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var", Or 68 (1999) 52-54; D.B. REDFORD, "A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var", Or 68 (1999) 58-60.

⁴¹ For short surveys of the different schools of thought, see E. EYNIKEL, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 33; Leiden 1996) 7-31; P.S.F. VAN KEULEN, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists. The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1-18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38; Leiden 1996) 3-52.

⁴² N. NA’AMAN, "Historiography, the Fashioning of the Collective Memory, and the Establishment of Historical Consciousness in Israel in the Late Monarchial Period", Zion 60 (1995) 449-472 (Hebrew); ID., "Sources and Composition in the History of David", The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (eds. V. FRITZ – P.R. DAVIES) (JSOTSS 228; Sheffield 1996) 180-183; ID., "Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon", The Age of Solomon — Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. L.K. HANDY) (Leiden 1997) 76-80; ID., "Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah", VT 48 (1998) 333-349.

⁴³ N. NA’AMAN, "Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides", Bib 78 (1997) 153-173.

⁴⁴ N. NA’AMAN, "The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research", ZAW 107 (1995) 183.

⁴⁵ This is the seventh in a series of article that discuss the problem of sources and composition in the books of Samuel and Kings. For earlier articles, see the literature cited in N. NA’AMAN, "The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source", JSOT 82 (1999) 5, n. 2.