The Cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament; - The Search For ...

SECOND BOOK OF KINGS XVIII. 303
Jerusalem. This was evidently a last energetic attempt
on the part of the king to bring the rebellious vassal to
obedience, dictated by the anxiety he felt about his unpro-
tected rear, on receipt of the intelligence that the great
Aegyptian array was approaching. But on the other hand
this very circumstance evidently emboldened Hezekiah to
hold out bravely. So this last attempt of the Great King
also remained unsuccessful. Perhaps even before the battle
of Altakti, or else certainly soon after that event, Sanherib
withdrew his corps from Juda in order that it might
join him in the final retreat. Thus Jerusalem was
delivered.*
* The above description rests on the presumption of the essential
unity of the account 2 Kings XVIII. 13—XIX, 37^, and on the con-
nection of that narrative with the parallel cuneiform account on the
cylinder of Sanherib. Recently, however, objections and doubts have
been repeatedly raised against the integrity of the Biblical record.
These deal with the question whether the sections chap. XVIII. 13— 16
and chap. XVIII. 17—XIX, 37, which immediately follows, originally
stood thus connected together. P. Kleiuert especially, in Theolog.
Studien u. Kritiken, 1877, I, pp. 167 foil., has put forward and endea-
voured to sustain the view, that the passage chap. XVIII. 14— 16 has
no reference to the campaign of Sanherib, but refers to that of Sargon.
The name of the king (Sanherib) he supposes to have been the arbi-
trary addition of the redactor. Thus the extract alludes to the time
of the Assyrian invasion of Palestine in the ninth year of Sargon's
reign, on which occasion the important event was the taking of Ashdod.
But quite apart from the fact that , as is shown in the remarks on
Is. XXII, no mention is made of a campaign against Juda as occurring
during the military enterprise of Sargon, it is to be observed that
the distinct statements respecting the sending of tribute , respecting
its amount as well as the spot where the embassy was received,
Lakish, XVIII, 14. 16, agree so remarkably with the cuneiform record
relating to Sanherib, that it is scarcely possible to regard the above
hypothesis as very probable. We put on one side the chronological
difficulties which it does not diminish but only aggravates; on this
subject comp. Nowack in Studien und Kritiken 1881 pp. 300 foil,
especially p. 302.—Respecting the kindred view of Wellhausen that