Probably no event in the Old Testament is as well documented as Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BC. The Bible itself gives us three accounts: 2 Kings 18:13-19:36, Isaiah 36-37, and 2 Chronicles 32:1-23. In addition, we have several versions of Sennacherib’s own report on the event, plus reliefs carved out in stone that show in gruesome detail how his army went about besieging and storming the city of Lachish, and what it did it to its population afterwards.
Attribution Photo: Osama S. M. Amin (2014), Assyrian Slingers Attacking The City of Lachish, https://www.ancient.eu/image/2806/ (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)
You can also watch this issue as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
These reliefs are on display in the British Museum and it is worth a minute or two to have a look:
Siege of Lachish in 3D (British Museum)
If you have a bit more time, I recommend this article with numerous photographs showing details of the relief:
http://etc.ancient.eu/photos/siege-lachish-reliefs-british-museum/
The relative wealth of material does not make it easier to determine what, exactly, really happened. There are contradictions and tensions between the biblical and Assyrian versions. And even within the biblical accounts, it is difficult to see how some of the pieces fit together. I have been working on a study guide for the book of Isaiah (which I hope to make available later this year) and ran into a recent dissertation by Nazek Khalid Matty (2016) dealing with the invasion. With his help, I decided to take a fresh look at the accounts in Kings and Isaiah.
I will start with some background information on Sennacherib, including his own statement on the invasion of Judah and his dealings with Hezekiah. This will show us two main points of conflict between Sennacherib’s version and the Bible. After proposing a solution, I will turn to the account in 2 Kings and to the question why Sennacherib left and returned to Nineveh. The answer is not as obvious as it may appear and has been another point of contention among interpreters.
Sennacherib at War
During its history, the Assyrian empire had incorporated many smaller city-states and kingdoms. These were expected to make substantial yearly tribute payments. This burden made it attractive to try and break free from the empire, even though the Assyrians were ruthless and brutal in their suppression of revolts. Still, revolts were frequent, especially when a new king ascended to the throne. This is what happened in 705 BC, when Sennacherib succeeded his father, Sargon, as king.
Before he became king, Sennacherib had administrated the empire while his father, Sargon, took care of military campaigns. Sennacherib had not been involved in any campaign himself, so no one expected much of him as a military leader. This turned out to be a fatal mistake.
Sennacherib proved to be a capable leader of the army. His first campaign in 703 BC took him to Babylon, where Merodach-baladan had seized power (the latter makes an appearance in 2 Kings 20:12 and Isaiah 39:1, sending an embassy to Hezekiah). Two years later, in 701 BC, Sennacherib turned his attention to the rebellious nations in the west of his empire. With the encouragement of Egypt (Assyria’s main rival in the west), the city-states of Tyre and Sidon, the Philistines, Judah, and others had rebelled against Assyrian rule. Sennacherib first dealt with Tyre and Sidon, defeated the Egyptians and the Philistines further south, and then invaded Judah.
We should not misread the biblical accounts of this attack. It was a devastating affair. Yes, Jerusalem was gloriously saved, but much of the rest of Judah was ravaged and destroyed. This is how Isaiah described the invasion:
Your country lies desolate;
your cities are burned with fire;
in your very presence
foreigners devour your land;
it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.
And the daughter of Zion is left
like a booth in a vineyard,
like a lodge in a cucumber field,
like a besieged city.
If the LORD of hosts
had not left us a few survivors,
we should have been like Sodom,
and become like Gomorrah. (Is. 1:7-9)
And this is the campaign in Sennacherib’s own words:
As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up siege-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him – the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I laid upon him the surrender of their land and impost – gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendour of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers. (as quoted in Hanson 2007)
If you have never read this text before, you may be especially surprised about two things. Sennacherib’s report does not admit defeat but claims success. And it asserts that Hezekiah sent him a substantial tribute to Nineveh. The biblical account, at least in 2 Kings 18:4-6, does speak of a tribute but seems to place it at the beginning of the invasion, before Sennacherib’s departure, and in Lachish, not Nineveh. The two main questions are, therefore:
- Was Sennacherib defeated or not?
- When and where did Sennacherib receive a tribute from Hezekiah?
Victory or Defeat?
Even without further background information, the first question is not so hard to answer. Sennacherib’s account is propaganda. He puts as positive spin on the events as he can. His silence speaks louder than his words. Why does Sennacherib not tell us that he took Jerusalem and its king? Why did he merely lock up him “like a bird in a cage”?
Matty’s dissertation confirms these doubts about Sennacherib’s version. Matty took a comprehensive look at all the campaigns of Sennacherib as presented in official inscriptions, not just the one against Judah. This enabled Matty to establish what was “normal” or “typical” in such campaigns and to determine what was “abnormal” in Sennacherib’s report about Hezekiah and Jerusalem.
It was certainly not normal to leave a defeated king in his city and in power. On other occasions, Sennacherib makes very clear that the king submitted to him in person. Usually, this king was not permitted to live but was executed and replaced.
That Sennacherib’s “victory” over Hezekiah was not quite the success Sennacherib is trying to sell it for is also shown by the highly unusual tribute payment. It is too large to be a normal yearly payment. Such large, one-time tributes were paid as an expression of surrender or submission. But in such cases, the submitting king always presented himself in person to offer the tribute and show his submission. He would either come out of his city, welcome the Assyrian king into his palace, or be obligated to travel to Nineveh and present himself in person there. It was intended to be a humiliating experience that would make sure the submitting king would not forget his place. Hezekiah’s tribute was apparently presented and accepted without Hezekiah’s personal appearance – another compromise by the Assyrian king.
While none of this proves the biblical account of divine deliverance (Is. 37:36), it certainly does not conflict with it and provides indirect confirmation.
The Tribute
This does, of course, not yet explained the tribute or clarify when and where it was presented. This is how the book of Kings speaks of the tribute:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. (2 Ki. 18:13-17a)
It is often assumed that Hezekiah paid this tribute to persuade Sennacherib to discontinue his attack. In that case, of course, Hezekiah paid entirely in vain. How can we explain or reconcile the accounts of Kings and Sennacherib?
- One option is that there were two tribute payments. This would remove the conflict, but it is unlikely. Hezekiah was already stretched to pay once; how could he have paid such a hefty sum again after the invasion had devastated his kingdom and its economy?
- It might be that Sennacherib misrepresents the time and the place of the payment. It is hard to see, however, why he would do this; different from his spin on what he managed to do to Hezekiah, it does not place him in a better light.
- It could be that Sennacherib is correct on this point. We should notice what the biblical text does not say. Negotiations began in Lachish, but we are not told when and where the tribute was paid.
The only time reference is “at that time” (verse 16). This is vague and imprecise. Notice that verse 13 is a general statement and summarizes the entire campaign in Judah: around that time, Hezekiah paid a tribute. And notice the parallel use of the phrase in 2 Kings 20:12:
At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick. (emphasis added)
This is also vague and rather broad. Was this before or after the attack (it can hardly have been during the invasion)? It is usually assumed that it preceded the attack because Merodach-baladan was pushed out of Babylon in 703 BC. “At that time” is therefore a phrase with some flexibility built in. We should also notice 2 Kings 19:37: Sennacherib was killed by two of his sons. In the biblical text, it sounds like this took place shortly after the campaign. But it happened in 681 BC, about 20 years later. (Still bad enough, to be murdered by your own children.)
Clearly, the account in Kings is not interested in detailed chronology.
Taken together, this leaves open the possibility that the tribute payment, while perhaps initiated at the start of the attack, was finalised afterwards.
Interestingly, although the account in Isaiah 36 and 37 is almost word for word identical to the one in Kings, 2 Kings 18:14-16 is missing in Isaiah. Did Isaiah delete these verses? Did Kings insert them? It is hard to know, but in the latter case, the tribute episode may have been added from another source.
All of this leaves us with two questions:
Why does Kings place the tribute verses at the beginning? Perhaps because they illuminate the reason for the invasion. In the passage right before it (2 Kings 18:9-12), we read of another Assyrian invasion, by King Shalmaneser, who invaded the kingdom of Israel, besieged Samaria, and took its people into captivity – because they had disobeyed God. This is not the reason for the invasion by Sennacherib. Sennacherib comes, not because Hezekiah has rebelled against God, but because he rebelled against the Assyrian king. 2 Kings 18:7 even implies this was one of the positives about Hezekiah. Hezekiah’s admission, “I have done wrong” (18:14), does not relate to God but to Sennacherib.
Why would Hezekiah still pay after Sennacherib left? Matty argues that the Assyrian army was not destroyed in its entirety. Since it had been campaigning in more than one location at the same time, one or more camps may have survived. A continuing Assyrian presence in Judah or nearby would pose a threat. There was a chance that Sennacherib would return to finish what he had started. To prevent this, the tribute was paid, so Matty, and as it turned out, it effectively ended the threat.
Why Did Sennacherib Return to Nineveh?
You may think the answer is obvious: because his army was destroyed. But again, the text does not explicitly state this:
And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. (2 Ki. 19:35-36)
Event B (Sennacherib departed) followed event A (destruction of the Assyrian army). That does not necessarily mean that B is caused by A. It might be, but this is not certain. Other explanations have been offered. There are four options:
- The tribute persuaded Sennacherib to call it a day. Not likely, as nothing in the text points this way (nothing suggests the tribute was paid or promised just before Sennacherib left).
- According to Isaiah’s prophecy, Sennacherib would leave because of a rumour he would hear: “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumour and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land” (2 Ki. 19:7). More on this option below.
- The king of Egypt (strictly speaking, the text refers to “Cush” or Nubia rather than Egypt) came up for an attack: “Now the king heard concerning Tirhakah king of Cush, “Behold, he has set out to fight against you” (2 Ki. 19:9). There are those who argue that this is why Sennacherib left.
- The destruction of the army. Most likely, this played a role, but in Isaiah’s prophecy, it is the rumour, not the destruction of the army, that will make Sennacherib leave.
Matty concludes that the rumour was the real reason for Sennacherib’s return. Many interpreters argue that this rumour is the report on the Egyptian approach, but Matty argues against this. The text does not state this. An Egyptian attempt to meddle with the campaign would hardly have been a surprise. And it would not have been too worrisome, seeing the weakness of the Egyptian involvement so far. In the words of the Rabshakeh, Egypt was a “broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it” (2 Ki. 18:21).
But above all, an Egyptian attack would be a bad reason (and a bad moment) to leave. One can accuse Sennacherib of many things, but he was not a coward. If any rumour could have moved Sennacherib to leave, so Matty, it would be one about renewed troubles in Babylon – a place close to home and of greater importance to Assyria than either Jerusalem or Egypt. This would indeed justify going home.
Throughout his life, Babylon proved particularly cumbersome to Sennacherib. His first campaign, in 703 BC, dealt with Babylon, and he had to come back twice, in 700 (the year after Judah!) and in 689. At the end of this third campaign, he completely erased Babylon to the ground. This may be the background of Isaiah 21.
It was to no avail. 75 years later, Babylon would rise to overthrow Assyria. Forever.
References
K. C. Hanson (2007), Sennacherib Prism: Column Three, http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/sennprism3.html (accessed: 21 Jan. 2018)
Nazek Khalid Matty (2016), Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B.C.: A Historical Reconstruction. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. 487 (Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter)
Standard Bible Society (2001), The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society)