I'm just trying to enjoy my nap.
With the same kindling as before I have again set the internet on fire. Aware of the guilt I bear as the e-arsonist I feel it is my duty to douse the flames. Here are several boring excerpts from a term paper I wrote a few years ago. If you laugh at this it isn’t because I’m funny but because you find my research sophomoric and regard my historiography as jejune.
Only Bryan and Nicole are exempt from reading it. For Jonathan there will be a test. The sexy title of this piece?
Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah: One or Two Campaigns?
… … …If all that existed were the Assyrian annals there would be no such question to confront. These annals, the subsequent history of Assyria, and the archaeology of Israel do not give us any reason to believe that there was more than one campaign. However, irregularities observed in the literary style of the book of II Kings have given rise to efforts by some very credentialed scholars to demonstrate that it contains the descriptions of two separate invasions, and that a second western campaign is probable, or at least possible, in light of all extant sources.
… … … Here, when a “first” or “second” campaign is discussed, it is from a Judean-historical perspective. For the Assyrians this was Sennacherib’s third campaign. It was preceded by, first an incursion against Babylonia and Edom, and a second, against the Kassites. There would be five more major campaigns between the abortive attempt on Judah and Sennacherib’s death (Edelman 2000: 91).
… … … Stylistic differences and divergent areas of concern have prompted researchers to break II Kings 18:13-19:37 into different sources or “units” for study (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 240). Depending on the scholar cited, they may consider there to be two or three such units -A and B, or A, B1, and B2. Cogan and Tadmoor supply a rationale for subdividing B. They believe that what they see as the two sources of B, contain similar prophetic material that refers to the same event. They contend that B1 “bears the markings of authentic events, close to the time of Sennacherib’s invasion” and that “situations are vividly recalled”. B2, they claim “arose considerably later; it bears the imprint of the Deuteronomistic school” (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 243). Gallagher has argued against further dividing B on the grounds that those who separate B do not believe in its veracity enough to grant it historical consideration while he holds that it may indeed be useful as an historical source.
… … … The tension where Unit-A joins Unit-B at II Kings 18:16-17 is readily apparent and does not appeal to our modern common senses. From here stems all attempts to postulate a second campaign.
… … … Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmoor have assigned to Egypt a greater role in the rebellion than it probably assumed (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 221). Gallagher notes that securing Egypt’s support came with the delivery of a “generous gift” and that they likely functioned in the capacity of a safeguard should the revolt take an unfavorable turn (Gallagher 1999: 274).
… … … Eltekeh was a crucial battle and probably a pyrrhic victory for Sennacherib. Indeed, this may have been the turning point which precipitated the standing-down from Jerusalem and the opening of negotiations with Hezekiah. As Redford has concluded, ”there can be no doubt that it was an unexpected and serious reverse for Assyria [sic] arms, and contributed significantly to Sennacherib’s permanent withdrawal from the Levant” (Redford 1992: 353). Taharqa would not have been old enough in 701 B.C.E. to have led an army, even as an officer. His brother Shabaka was the Pharaoh at the battle of Eltekeh. Shabaka died in 696 B.C.E. and was succeeded by his brother Shebitku. It is at this time that an article known as the Kawa text indicates the summoning of Taharqa from Nubia as Shebitku assembles his court. “Taharqa” was probably the only Pharaonic name that the biblical writer was aware of from the period he was covering (Redford 1992: 352-354).
… … … perhaps the simplest rationale against a second campaign, is the fact that Assyria was the preeminent world power in 689 B.C.E. Hezekiah’s heir, Manasseh, ruled as a vassal-king with no evidence of his having been coerced and there is no evidence to suggest that Esarhaddon had to reconquer the west. Bearing in mind that Sennacherib was the monarch who was capable of virtually erasing the city of Babylon “off the face of the earth” it is not shocking that subsequent Judean rulers should have thought better of remaking Hezekiah’s gamble (Cogan 2001: 69; Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 249).
… … … At Tel Halif stratum VI B is a massive destruction layer dating to 701 B.C.E. The town was reinhabited by refugees following the destruction but was again abandoned for a time about fifty years later, perhaps in fear of another attack (Borowski 2005: 31).
... ... ...I bet this doesn't make it up to 50 something comments.
Only Bryan and Nicole are exempt from reading it. For Jonathan there will be a test. The sexy title of this piece?
Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah: One or Two Campaigns?
… … …If all that existed were the Assyrian annals there would be no such question to confront. These annals, the subsequent history of Assyria, and the archaeology of Israel do not give us any reason to believe that there was more than one campaign. However, irregularities observed in the literary style of the book of II Kings have given rise to efforts by some very credentialed scholars to demonstrate that it contains the descriptions of two separate invasions, and that a second western campaign is probable, or at least possible, in light of all extant sources.
… … … Here, when a “first” or “second” campaign is discussed, it is from a Judean-historical perspective. For the Assyrians this was Sennacherib’s third campaign. It was preceded by, first an incursion against Babylonia and Edom, and a second, against the Kassites. There would be five more major campaigns between the abortive attempt on Judah and Sennacherib’s death (Edelman 2000: 91).
… … … Stylistic differences and divergent areas of concern have prompted researchers to break II Kings 18:13-19:37 into different sources or “units” for study (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 240). Depending on the scholar cited, they may consider there to be two or three such units -A and B, or A, B1, and B2. Cogan and Tadmoor supply a rationale for subdividing B. They believe that what they see as the two sources of B, contain similar prophetic material that refers to the same event. They contend that B1 “bears the markings of authentic events, close to the time of Sennacherib’s invasion” and that “situations are vividly recalled”. B2, they claim “arose considerably later; it bears the imprint of the Deuteronomistic school” (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 243). Gallagher has argued against further dividing B on the grounds that those who separate B do not believe in its veracity enough to grant it historical consideration while he holds that it may indeed be useful as an historical source.
… … … The tension where Unit-A joins Unit-B at II Kings 18:16-17 is readily apparent and does not appeal to our modern common senses. From here stems all attempts to postulate a second campaign.
… … … Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmoor have assigned to Egypt a greater role in the rebellion than it probably assumed (Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 221). Gallagher notes that securing Egypt’s support came with the delivery of a “generous gift” and that they likely functioned in the capacity of a safeguard should the revolt take an unfavorable turn (Gallagher 1999: 274).
… … … Eltekeh was a crucial battle and probably a pyrrhic victory for Sennacherib. Indeed, this may have been the turning point which precipitated the standing-down from Jerusalem and the opening of negotiations with Hezekiah. As Redford has concluded, ”there can be no doubt that it was an unexpected and serious reverse for Assyria [sic] arms, and contributed significantly to Sennacherib’s permanent withdrawal from the Levant” (Redford 1992: 353). Taharqa would not have been old enough in 701 B.C.E. to have led an army, even as an officer. His brother Shabaka was the Pharaoh at the battle of Eltekeh. Shabaka died in 696 B.C.E. and was succeeded by his brother Shebitku. It is at this time that an article known as the Kawa text indicates the summoning of Taharqa from Nubia as Shebitku assembles his court. “Taharqa” was probably the only Pharaonic name that the biblical writer was aware of from the period he was covering (Redford 1992: 352-354).
… … … perhaps the simplest rationale against a second campaign, is the fact that Assyria was the preeminent world power in 689 B.C.E. Hezekiah’s heir, Manasseh, ruled as a vassal-king with no evidence of his having been coerced and there is no evidence to suggest that Esarhaddon had to reconquer the west. Bearing in mind that Sennacherib was the monarch who was capable of virtually erasing the city of Babylon “off the face of the earth” it is not shocking that subsequent Judean rulers should have thought better of remaking Hezekiah’s gamble (Cogan 2001: 69; Cogan and Tadmoor 1988: 249).
… … … At Tel Halif stratum VI B is a massive destruction layer dating to 701 B.C.E. The town was reinhabited by refugees following the destruction but was again abandoned for a time about fifty years later, perhaps in fear of another attack (Borowski 2005: 31).
... ... ...I bet this doesn't make it up to 50 something comments.