Offprint From:

Chronicling the Chronicler

The Book of Chronicles and

Early Second Temple Historiography

Edited by
Paul S. EvanS and TylEr F. WilliamS

Winona Lake, Indiana

E iSEnbraunS
2013
 To Our Children

Chaim Randall Evans and Talyah Lee Evans

and

Sydney May Williams, Teresa Katheryn Williams,

and Isaac Nelson Williams

© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns Inc.

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Chronicling the Chronicler : the Book of Chronicles and early second temple
historiography / edited by Paul S. Evans and Tyler F. Williams.
p. cm.
“Essays in this volume are largely revised papers which were originally
presented as part of the Ancient Historiography Seminar of the Canadian
Society of Biblical Studies and they investigate particular texts of
Chronicles, examine central themes, and consider future prospects for
Chronicles study.”—Publisher.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-290-7 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Bible. Chronicles—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible.
Chronicles—Historiography. I. Evans, Paul S., editor. II. Williams,
Tyler F., editor.
BS1345.52.C47 2013
222′.606—dc23
2013041061

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ™♾
 Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Paul S. Evans
Part 1
Texts and Studies
The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9: Purposes, Forms,
and the Utopian Identity of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Steven Schweitzer
Reading the Lists: Several Recent Studies of the
Chronicler’s Genealogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Keith Bodner
Seeking Saul in Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
P. J. Sabo
Let the Crime Fit the Punishment: The Chronicler’s Explication
of David’s “Sin” in 1 Chronicles 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Paul S. Evans
Of Jebus, Jerusalem, and Benjamin: The Chronicler’s Sondergut
in 1 Chronicles 21 against the Background
of the Late Persian Era in Yehud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Louis Jonker
Historia or Exegesis? Assessing the Chronicler’s
Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Paul S. Evans
Reading Chronicles and Reshaping the Memory of Manasseh . . . . . . 121
Ehud Ben Zvi
The Cohesiveness of 2 Chronicles 33:1–36:23 as a
Literary Unit Concluding the Book of Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Shannon E. Baines

v
vi Contents

Part 2
Central Themes
“To Him You Must Listen”: The Prophetic Legislation in Deuteronomy
and the Reformation of Classical Tradition in Chronicles . . . . . . . 161
Gary N. Knoppers
Divine Retribution in Herodotus and the Book of Chronicles . . . . . . 195
John W. Wright
Gazing through the Cloud of Incense: Davidic Dynasty and
Temple Community in the Chronicler’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . 215
Mark J. Boda
Toward a Sense of Balance: Remembering the Catastrophe of
Monarchic Judah / (Ideological) Israel and Exile
through Reading Chronicles in Late Yehud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Ehud Ben Zvi
Part 3
Future Prospects
Response: Relections on the Book of Chronicles
and Second Temple Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Christine Mitchell
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Index of Authors 311
Index of Scripture 316
 Offprint from:
Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles
and Early Second Temple Historiography
Paul S. Evans and Tyler F. Williams, eds.
© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Historia or Exegesis?
Assessing the Chronicler’s
Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative

Paul S. Evans
McMaster Divinity College, McMaster University

Introduction
The story of the invasion of Sennacherib in the book of Chronicles provides
an interesting case study for examining aspects of the Chronicler’s method. 1
As is well known, the majority of scholars have concluded that the main
source for the Chronicler’s work was the Deuteronomistic History (primarily
Samuel–Kings). 2 Similarly, when the Chronicler diverged from his Vorlage,
1. By Chronicler, I mean the author(s) of the book of Chronicles.
2. Of course, Auld and Ho argue for a common source behind both Chronicles
and the Deuteronomistic History rather than a theory of dependence of the former on
the latter. See A. G. auld, Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the
Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994); idem, “What Was the Main Source of
the Books of Chronicles?” in The Chronicler as Author (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L.
McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1999) 91–135. Also
C. Y. S. Ho, “Conjectures and Refutations: Is 1 Samuel XXXI 1–13 Really the Source
of 1 Chronicles X 1–12?” VT 45 (1995) 82–106. As with most scholars, I have not
found their arguments convincing because the supposed “shared text” (book of the Two
Houses) is far too much like Samuel–Kings to be worth serious consideration. The
Chronicler clearly shows knowledge of material (and assumes this knowledge of his au-
dience) from Samuel that does not easily it into the shared source that Auld asserts was
a history of Judah. See S. L. McKenzie, “The Chronicler as Redactor,” in ibid., 70–90.
More recently, R. Person has argued that the Chronicler’s history and “Deuteronomic”
history were actually more or less contemporary, competing histories (R. F. Person, The
Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World
[SBLAIL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010]; idem, The Deuteronomic
School: History, Social Setting, and Literature [Studies in Biblical Literature 2; ed. D. T.
Olson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002]). Person argues for a Persian-pe-
riod dating for the Deuteronomistic History on text-critical grounds. He highlights LXX
texts in the Deuteronomistic History that appear to relect a Hebrew Vorlage earlier than
the MT. Person therefore posits Deuteronomistic redaction at a stage later than these
LXX-Vorlagen, concluding that the Deuteronomists worked in the postexilic period

103
104 Paul S. Evans

these deviations are often understood as being the result of the Chronicler’s
intentional editorial activity and directly related to his ideology. 3 However, at
other times the changes are thought to be due to the Chronicler’s reliance on
unknown sources that are no longer extant.
In the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative (2 Chronicles 32), both
explanations have been suggested to account for the divergences from his
Vorlage. In some details of the narrative (for example, Hezekiah’s war prepa-
rations), the Chronicler may have relied on an unknown source(s); in other
areas (for example, Sennacherib’s failure to take Judah’s fortiied cities), the
Chronicler simply changed the facts to it his ideological purposes. A closer
look at two proposals for explaining the Chronicler’s method in 2 Chronicles
32 is necessary at this point.
In attempting to describe the Chronicler’s method in this chapter, Childs
and Williamson suggested the term midrash as the most appropriate descrip-
tor. 4 One of the main features of midrash that both scholars detect in the

(as late as the mid-ifth century b.c.e). Person suggests that the Chronicler employed
a pre-Deuteronomic text as his source and that the Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles school
eventually replaced the Deuteronomic school. However, his textual-critical arguments
are unconvincing. First, the examples he uses are some of the most debated text-critical
problems in the Deuteronomistic History (Josh 20:1–7; 1 Samuel 17; 1 Kgs 12:24),
and his conclusion that LXX Kings always predates the MT version is overreached,
because many examples where the latter predates the former can easily be found. Fur-
thermore, his dating of Deuteronomistic History additions to the early Persian period
does not really explain why the LXX translates the pre-Deuteronomic text, unless the
work of the Deuteronomists goes far later than he allows (because he does not argue
for an early date for the LXX). As Van Seters has commented: “If it is correct that the
Deuteronomistic redaction of Samuel and Kings is later than the writing of Chronicles,
as apparently conirmed by such text-criticism, then Person’s view that the EzraNehe-
miahChronicles school replaced the Deuteronomic school is completely contradicted”
(“Review of The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature,” JAOS
123 [2003] 388–89, esp. p. 389). Person’s work has not gained the assent of many so
far, and I do not ind his thesis to be sustained by his arguments.
3. Of course, this is not always the case, because there is much evidence that the
diferences between the MT of the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler’s actual
Vorlage explain many of the divergences. See W. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in
the Chronicler’s History,” HTR 58 (1965) 349–63. This is especially evident regarding
the text of Samuel. See E. C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM
19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978); S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the
Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); P. E. Dion, “The
Angel with the Drawn Sword ([1] Chr 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of
Text Criticism and Attention to Context,” ZAW 97 (1985) 114–17.
4. B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2/3; London: SCM, 1967)
107; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1982) 379. In the past Wellhausen has used the term to describe the Chronicler’s work
in a pejorative sense (Prolegomena to the History of Israel [Atlanta: Scholars Press,
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 105

Table 1. The Chronicler’s Source-Critical Awareness

2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37
(Account B1)
Isaiah prays
(2 Kgs 19:4)
“Who among all the gods
of the countries have de-
livered their countries out
of my hand . . . ?”
(2 Kgs 18:35)
The Rabshakeh delivers a
message in person (2 Kgs
18:19–37)
2 Kgs 19:9b–35
(Account B2)
Hezekiah prays
(2 Kgs 19:15–19)
“Have the gods of the
nations delivered them,
the nations that my fathers
destroyed . . . ?”
(2 Kgs 19:12)
Letter threats are sent
(2 Kgs 19:14)
2 Chronicles 32
Both Isaiah and Hezekiah
pray
(2 Chr 32:20)
“Do you not know what I
and my fathers have done
to all the peoples of other
lands?”
(2 Chr 32:13)
Speeches are delivered
(2 Chr 32:10–15) and
letters are sent
(2 Chr 32:17)

Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative is the “serious wrestling with the

problems arising from [the Chronicler’s Vorlage] itself.” 5 What is interesting
about these scholars’ observations is their view that 2 Kings 18–19 presented
tremendous problems of interpretation due to its being comprised of contradic-
tory parallel accounts. As Williamson writes, “It needs to be remembered that
the Chronicler, together with many modern scholars, took the two accounts in
2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37 and in 2 Kgs 19:9b–35 to be parallel and that he
summarized them into one.” 6 In other words, the Chronicler also held to the
source-critical delineations that have come to be known as the Stade-Childs
hypothesis. 7 The proof for the Chronicler’s anticipation of the Stade-Childs
hypothesis is ofered by Childs. 8 His argument is displayed most simply in
table 1.
However, I ind this evidence unconvincing. Each of these examples can
be more easily explained by understanding the Chronicler to be summarizing
the Deuteronomist’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative as a whole rather than

1994] 227). Similarly, Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik, übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902) ix; Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, Its Purpose
and Its Date (Schweich Lectures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939) 54.
5. Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 107; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 379.
6. Ibid.
7. That is, the source-critical delineations that divide 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 into three
discrete, parallel sources and have been labeled: Account A (2 Kgs 18:13–16); Account
B1 (2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37); and Account B2 (2 Kgs 19:9b–35). See Stade, “Mis-
cellen: Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21,” ZAW 6 (1886) 156–89; Childs, Assyrian Crisis.
8. Ibid., 108.
106 Paul S. Evans

attempting to harmonize what he viewed as contradictory, parallel sources. 9

For example, it is not evident that the Chronicler viewed these accounts as
a doublet simply because he presents both Hezekiah and Isaiah as praying.
I favor the simpler explanation that the Chronicler’s source referred to both
men praying, and therefore the Chronicler simply summarized by referring to
both instances. 10 It is more likely that he viewed 2 Kings 18–19 as one contin-
uous account wherein initially Isaiah prayed, and then subsequently Hezekiah
prayed.
Needless to say, the diiculties that modern scholars have found in 2 Kings
18–19 were not the same diiculties that the Chronicler discerned in the text.
So the label midrash, as suggesting that its starting point for interpretation was
these perceived diiculties in the text, appears to be an inadequate (and anach-
ronistic) term to describe the Chronicler’s work.
Japhet characterizes 2 Chronicles 32 as “adaptive” in character and a “com-
prehensive epitomization” of 2 Kings 18–20. 11 However, she views Hezeki-
ah’s address to the people (2 Chr 32:7–8), his preparations for the war, and the
listing of his political and economic accomplishments as not based on 2 Kings
18–20. In her view, Hezekiah’s speech is a free composition that was not in-
luenced by any particular source, while his war preparation and economic
achievements were based on an “additional independent source.” 12
Although I am in basic agreement with Japhet’s position regarding the “epit-
omization” aspect of the Chronicler’s work in this instance, I suggest in this
essay that more of the divergent material in 2 Chronicles 32 can be attributed
to his reliance on and critical interaction with his sources than she has allowed.
Furthermore, I maintain that in 2 Chronicles 32 the Chronicler did not intend
to contradict or correct his sources through these divergences. In fact, each of
the distinctive features of the Chronicler’s narrative appears to be founded on
his interpretation of the sources he employed (this realization somewhat mit-
igates the necessity of positing extrabiblical sources on which the Chronicler
relied). Furthermore, while agreeing with Williamson and Childs in seeing the
Chronicler’s work as a critical engagement with his source text, I argue that
his basic approach to his sources in 2 Chronicles 32 was not midrashic but
historiographical in nature. However, his historiographic impulse cannot be
separated from the theological and exegetical aspects of his method.

9. For a detailed discussion about the Stade-Childs hypothesis and its many weak-
nesses, see my Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and
Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19 (VTSup 125; Leiden: Brill, 2009).
10. As Japhet has observed, “The general tendency of the Chronicler is to abbrevi-
ate” (I and II Chronicles [OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993] 976).
11. Ibid., 976–77.
12. Ibid., 976–78.
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 107

The Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative

The divergences of 2 Chronicles 32 from 2 Kings 18–19 are readily ap-

parent: (1) Hezekiah does not rebel against Assyria (contra 2 Kgs 18:7–8),
(2) Hezekiah does not pay tribute to Sennacherib (contra 2 Kgs 18:14–16),
(3) Sennacherib does not conquer Judah’s fortiied cities (contra 2 Kgs 18:13),
(4) Hezekiah fortiies Jerusalem (not mentioned in 2 Kings), (5) Hezekiah ad-
dresses the people (the address is not recorded in 2 Kings), (6) Tirhakah of
Cush is absent from the narrative (contra 2 Kgs 19:9), (7) Jerusalem is not be-
sieged by the Assyrian army because the Assyrian forces do not even approach
the city of David (contra 2 Kgs 18:17).
In order to assess what changes the Chronicler makes to his Vorlage, we
must irst determine with which source(s) the Chronicler was working. While
there is little dispute about whether Samuel–Kings was the Chronicler’s main
source for his work, the Chronicler’s own source citation in this instance is
intriguing. In 2 Chr 32:32, the Chronicler refers to his source as “the vision
(‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz,” which is the title of the canonical book of Isaiah
because its editorial incipit reads, “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz” (‫חזון‬
‫יׁעיהו בן־אמוץ‬, Isa 1:1). Since editorial superscriptions of this sort are late
accompaniments to prophetic books, if not the last additions, the Chronicler’s
awareness of this title suggests his knowledge of the book in its edited form. 13
This reference is compelling because Isaiah 36–37 contains virtually identi-
cal narratives to those in 2 Kings 18–19. It appears that the Chronicler was
aware of a relationship between the two books because he locates the “vision
of Isaiah” within “The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” 14 What is most
interesting for the purposes of this paper is that Isaiah 36–37 also omits both
Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria and his payment of tribute to Sennach-
erib. If we assume that either the Chronicler used the Isaian narratives instead
of the Deuteronomistic History in this instance or that he was at least inlu-
enced by the Isaian Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, then his omission of these

13. W. Johnstone actually argues that Chronicles presupposes not only the Deutero-
nomic History but the account in Isaiah as well (1 and 2 Chronicles [2 vols.; JSOTSup
253–54; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1997] 2:180). Williamson also mentions
in passing the possibility that the Chronicler was inluenced by the book of Isaiah
(1 and 2 Chronicles, 348). Interestingly, in 2 Chr 26:22 the Chronicler also refers to
Isaiah as being the author of King Uzziah’s history. The connection between Isaiah
and Uzziah is doubtless due to the book of Isaiah, which presents Isaiah as ministering
during Uzziah’s reign (Isa 1:1).
14. W. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in
the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1995)
216.
108 Paul S. Evans

parts of the narrative are explained. 15 This leaves only ive other items from our
list of the Chronicler’s divergences from 2 Kings 18–19 to examine.
Sennacherib’s Incomplete Conquest of the Fortiied Cities
At the beginning of this narrative (2 Chr 32:1), the Assyrian invasion is in its
infancy. Sennacherib invades and lays siege to the fortiied cities. Sennach-
erib’s thoughts are then described for us by the narrator, that he aspired ‘to con-
quer (‫ )בקע‬them’ for himself. 16 At irst glance, this is in direct contrast to 2 Kgs
18:13/Isa 36:1, which state that Sennacherib not only ‘came against’ (‫)עלה על‬
the fortiied cities but he ‘captured (‫ )ויתפׂם‬them’. However, it is interesting
that the Chronicler uses a diferent verb from his Vorlage here. Rather than
denying that he ‘captured’ (ׂ‫ )תפ‬the cities, the Chronicler simply does not nar-
rate Sennacherib’s ‘conquering’ (‫ )בקע‬of them. 17 The failure of Sennacherib to
“conquer” the cities may have been suggested by the note in 2 Kgs 19:8 that
Sennacherib left one fortiied city (Lachish) and went to ight against another
(Libnah). Why would Sennacherib need to ight against Libnah (2 Kgs 19:8)
if all the fortiied cities had truly been conquered at this point (2 Kgs 18:13)?
The Chronicler probably distinguished between an initial ‘seizing’ (ׂ‫ )תפ‬of
cities and a inal ‘conquering’ (‫ )בקע‬of them. Though they were temporarily
“seized,” the note about the Assyrians’ movement from Lachish to Libnah
suggested that these cities continued to resist and were not fully conquered.
The Chronicler may have seen another indication that all the fortiied cities
were not conquered in 2 Kgs 19:8, where the Rabshakeh returns to Lachish
to ind Sennacherib but is surprised that the Assyrian king ‘has left Lachish’
(ׁ‫ )נסע מלכי‬for Libnah (2 Kgs 19:8). In a military situation, the verb ‫ נסע‬can
indicate a withdrawal from hostilities. For example, 2 Kgs 3:27, when the

15. Japhet suggests that the Chronicler was inluenced by Isaiah in regard to his
omission of Hezekiah’s rebellion and his tribute paid to Sennacherib (I and II Chron-
icles, 977). The supposition that the Chronicler was inluenced by Isaiah may also be
seen in the note that, due to Hezekiah’s pride, “wrath” fell upon Judah and Jerusalem
(2 Chr 32:25), though it did not come in Hezekiah’s days (2 Chr 32:26). The Deu-
teronomistic History blames the exile on the sins of Manasseh, while in Isaiah, the
last chapters before the exilic section (chaps. 40–55; so-called Deutero-Isaiah) present
Hezekiah’s failings and the prediction of exile. Thus, it appears that the Chronicler
picked up on the arrangement of these Hezekiah narratives and their role in the structure
of the book of Isaiah to explain the exile by presenting Hezekiah as instrumental in the
falling of “wrath” on Judah as stated in 2 Chr 32:25–26.
16. The verb used here is ‫בקע‬, which means ‘to split/rip open’ in many instances
(e.g., Exod 14:16, Hos 13:8) but in military contexts refers to ‘breaking through’ enemy
lines (2 Sam 23:16, 2 Kgs 3:26, 1 Chr 11:18) and, especially, breaking through city
walls (2 Kgs 25:4; Jer 39:2, 52:7; Ezek 26:10). In Ezek 30:16; Isa 7:6; 2 Chr 21:17, and
32:1, the word seems to refer simply to conquering a city.
17. The word ׂ‫ תפ‬is employed 65 times in the OT/HB. Most commonly, it refers
to the seizing of individuals (42 times), but it is used 9 times for the seizure of cities.
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 109

battle against Moab is abandoned, says they ‘withdrew’ (‫ ;)ויסעו מעליו‬18 and at
the end of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative itself, after the angelic attack,
Sennacherib ‘withdraws’ (‫)ויסע‬. 19 Thus, the note that Sennacherib “withdrew”
from Lachish suggested to the Chronicler that he actually could not conquer
the city. 20 Rather than attempting to contradict his source, the Chronicler was
interpreting the source and making historical judgments. In fact, if we did not
have access to Assyrian annals, a drawing from Lachish, and archaeological
excavations that evince a destruction of the city during Sennacherib’s invasion,
we modern scholars might interpret the note in 2 Kgs 19:8 regarding Sennach-
erib’s ‫ נסע‬from Lachish in the same way. 21
Hezekiah Fortiies Jerusalem
In response to hearing of Sennacherib’s intended invasion, Hezekiah in 2 Chr
32:3 sets out to reroute the water supply to prevent an invading Assyrian army
from having access to water (2 Chr 32:4) and to fortify Jerusalem’s defenses by
repairing breaches in the wall, constructing a second wall, and strengthening
the Millo (2 Chr 32:5).
1. Fortifying Jerusalem’s Defenses. The Chronicler’s presentation of Heze-
kiah’s other eforts at strengthening Jerusalem’s fortiications do not ind a par-
allel in 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37. However, the details of these additional
fortiications have some interesting parallels with Isa 22:8b–11. A brief look at
this passage is necessary here.
On that day you looked to the weapons of the House of the Forest, and you saw
that there were many breaches in the city of David, and you collected the waters
of the lower pool. You counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you broke down the

18. Note the use of ‫ מן‬in this instance as well as in 2 Kgs 18:13. Similarly, in Num
20:22 after Edom comes out with a military force (Num 20:20), Israel ‘sets out from
Kadesh’ (ׁ‫) ויסעו מקד‬.
19. In non-military contexts, the verb similarly means ‘to move on’ from one place
to another (e.g., Gen 37:17). It is most commonly used in this sense.
20. Contra Childs, who asserts that the Chronicler assumes “that Lachish had
fallen” (Assyrian Crisis, 108).
21. Writing before the discovery of the Assyrian annals, Simon Patrick questioned
“whether this Destruction was made in the Army that besieged Libnah” (A Commentary
upon the Historical Books of the Old Testament [2 vols.; 6th ed.; London: Millar, 1765]
509). Even with the light from the Assyrian annals, some have viewed the move away
from Lachish in this way. For example, A. Edersheim suggested that Sennacherib’s
move from Lachish “indicates a further retreat of Sennacherib and his army” (Bible
History [7 vols.; Boston: Bradley 1887] 7:139–40). Honor entertained the possibility
that the destruction of Sennacherib’s army might have taken place at Lachish. See L. L.
Honor, Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study (COHP 12; New
York: Columbia University Press, 1926) 58. Thus, in this perspective, the fortiied cities
were not completely conquered.
110 Paul S. Evans

houses to fortify the wall. You made a reservoir between the two walls for the
water of the old pool. But you did not look to him who did it, or have regard for
him who planned it long ago.

Both Isaiah 22 and 2 Chronicles 32 refer to the construction of the water con-
duit, repairing the breaches in the wall, and a second wall. The last item is
especially interesting because 2 Chr 32:5 and Isa 22:11 are the only passages
in the Hebrew Bible to mention a second wall in Jerusalem. As noted above,
it appears that the Chronicler had access to the book of Isaiah, already in its
edited form. This makes the mention of the second wall another provocative
connection between Chronicles and Isaiah and may suggest that the Chronicler
employed Isaiah 22 in presenting Hezekiah’s fortiication eforts.
Gary Knoppers has noted the possibility that the Chronicler drew on Isaiah
22 at this point but rejected it for two reasons. 22 First, Isaiah 22 does not at-
tribute the construction of the wall explicitly to Hezekiah. Second, the details
of Isaiah 22 difer from the Chronicler’s presentation. 23 For instance, Isaiah
22 only mentions the repair of the original wall and the building of a water
basin between the inner and outer walls, while the Chronicler adds that Heze-
kiah built towers on the original wall and actually constructed the second wall.
However, I do not ind these objections compelling. First, regarding the lack
of explicit identiication of Hezekiah in Isaiah 22, since the Chronicler’s Vor-
lage clearly stated in 2 Kgs 20:20 that Hezekiah constructed the water conduit,
the reference in Isaiah 22 to the construction of the conduit would doubtless
have implied Hezekiah’s involvement to the Chronicler. What probably also
contributed to a perceived connection between Isaiah 22 and Hezekiah was the
focus on Shebna and Eliakim in Isa 22:15–25 and their association with Heze-
kiah in 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37. In fact, these two oicials are only men-
tioned in these texts, which probably strengthened the perceived connection of
Isaiah 22 to the Hezekiah story for the Chronicler. 24
Second, regarding the diferences in details, if the Chronicler connected
Isaiah 22 with the work of Hezekiah (as proposed above), the mention of a
second wall in Isaiah 22 could have suggested to him that Hezekiah also built
the second wall. In fact, Isa 22:10–11 says he broke down houses to fortify
the wall, then says he made a reservoir between the ‘two walls’ (‫)החמתים‬. It is

22. G. Knoppers, “History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms,” in The Chron-
icler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup
238; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1997) 198 n. 61.
23. Williamson also notes the similarities between Isaiah 22 and 2 Chronicles 32
but does not view the Chronicler as having used the former due to “several quite strik-
ing diferences between” the two passages (1 and 2 Chronicles, 380). However, he does
not elaborate on the “striking diferences” to which he refers.
24. For a hypothetical reconstruction of the relationship between Isaiah 22 and the
Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, see my Invasion of Sennacherib, 72–73.
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 111

possible that the Chronicler understood the use of houses to “fortify” the wall
as creating a second wall and placing the reservoir between it and the irst wall.
The reservoir could be part of the strengthening of the fortiications because
it would have served as “extra protection,” as Japhet suggests. 25 Alternatively,
the fact that this second wall is not mentioned elsewhere in his sources but
only in connection with the construction of the conduit could have suggested
to the Chronicler Hezekiah’s role in constructing the second wall. 26 The ref-
erence to towers’ being built could have been the Chronicler’s elaboration on
how Hezekiah fortiied the wall, since a wall is strengthened by the addition
of watchtowers (cf. Isa 2:15). Similarly, the reference to Hezekiah’s “strength-
ening the Millo” in 2 Chr 32:5 was probably the Chronicler’s elaboration on
Hezekiah’s wall-fortiication process. 27 Elsewhere, the building of the Millo
is often connected with the fortiication of the wall (1 Kgs 9:15, 11:27; 1 Chr
11:8). In fact, 1 Kgs 11:27 connects the building of the Millo with illing in the
breaches of the city wall.
2. The Waterworks Construction. Hezekiah’s eforts to reroute Jerusalem’s
water supply in preparation for an Assyrian attack does not ind a parallel in
his Vorlage. However, at the end of the Hezekiah narratives in 2 Kgs 20:20,
reference is made to Hezekiah’s construction project involving the water sup-
ply. Therefore, it seems likely that here the Chronicler was again attempting to
reconstruct on the basis of his Vorlage. However, 2 Kgs 20:20 does not connect
this construction to preparations for an Assyrian invasion as does the Chroni-
cler’s account. Historically speaking, there is reason to conclude that the entire
water project could not be a response to the Assyrian invasion in 701 b.c.E. 28
A project of this size (especially if the construction of the Siloam Tunnel is
in view) would have taken a considerable amount of time and could hardly
have been done so quickly after Sennacherib had already attacked the fortiied
cities (which is how it is presented in 2 Chronicles 32). Therefore, we must
inquire why the Chronicler saw a connection between the waterworks project
25. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 983.
26. For archaeological identiication of the second wall, see Avigad, “Excavations
in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City Jerusalem 1969/1970, Preliminary Report II,” IEJ
20 (1970) 129–34. Avigad dates this wall to the late eighth century b.c.E. See also idem,
Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983) 45–60.
27. Similarly, Japhet views the Chronicler’s reference to the strengthening of the
Millo as conforming to Isa 22:9 and the reference to repairing the breaches in the walls
(I and II Chronicles, 983).
28. As Dalley notes, the construction of the Siloam Tunnel “cannot have been con-
nected with the impending assault by Assyria because it would have taken too long to
make, and because it did not make a substantial diference to the end-point of the wa-
ter’s low—in other words, it would not deprive an Assyrian army of water” (“Recent
Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh,” JSOT
28 [2004] 397–98).
112 Paul S. Evans

and Sennacherib’s invasion if the Chronicler’s sources did not make this con-
nection. Once again, the inluence of the book of Isaiah on this narrative may
be detected, because Isa 22:11 references the construction of waterworks in
connection to fortiication preparations. 29 Thus, the Chronicler was following
the lead of his sources when he presented Hezekiah’s eforts to reroute Jeru-
salem’s water supply as being done in preparation for an Assyrian invasion. 30
However, one detail concerning the waterworks project could not have been
derived from either 2 Kings 20 or Isaiah 22. While 2 Kgs 20:20 only notes that
Hezekiah brought water into the city (with no reference to the western sector),
2 Chr 32:30 claims that he brought the Gihon waters “down to the west of the
city of David.” Interestingly, archaeological excavations show that this was
indeed the case. 31 However, how did the Chronicler know about the function
of the water system that Hezekiah constructed? Two possibilities exist. First,
he may have had a nonbiblical source (written or oral) on which he relied.
Second, since the Chronicler was probably a Jerusalemite, he could have had
irsthand access to the conduit to see its functioning; thus, no other source need
be posited. Nevertheless, his attributing the water system to Hezekiah may be
due solely to his reliance on 2 Kgs 20:20. 32
An interesting aspect of the Chronicler’s reliance on Isaiah 22 is his silence
regarding the critique that permeates that chapter and views those preparations

29. Kalimi asserts that the Chronicler relied on 2 Kgs 20:20 and Isa 22:8–11 for his
presentation of Hezekiah’s preparations for war, though he does not elaborate on any
speciics or on how exactly his sources informed his work in this regard (The Reshaping
of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005] 388).
30. Interestingly, when the Chronicler describes the waterworks construction, he
has the people justify it by saying “Why should the Assyrian kings come and ind water
in abundance” (2 Chr 32:4). If this project was begun only after Sennacherib’s invasion
had begun, it is curious that they should speak of Assyrian ‘kings’ (‫ )מלכי‬rather than
the singular “king” (Sennacherib). Perhaps this shows the Chronicler’s awareness that
the preparations for an Assyrian assault began well before Sennacherib’s invasion and
that the impetus for such extensive fortiications was Hezekiah’s plan to rebel against
Assyria.
31. R. G. North, “Does Archaeology Prove Chronicles Sources?” in A Light Unto
My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (eds. H. H. Bream, R. D.
Heim, and C. A. Moore; GTS 4; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974) 375–79.
32. Though most scholars attribute the construction of the Siloam Tunnel to Heze-
kiah, there have been some who think Manasseh was responsible. As Dalley has ar-
gued, a project of this size would have taken a considerable amount of time (“Recent
Evidence,” 397–98). If the Siloam tunnel was truly connected with the “siege” of 701,
surely the Kings account would have made this connection, since the narrative there
is so lengthy. Dalley has suggested that the Siloam tunnel was a project to bring water
into the royal garden which was an imitation of the hanging gardens of the Assyrian
monarch, noting parallels between the inscription in the tunnel and various Assyrian
inscriptions.
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 113

for war as symptomatic of unbelief. If this critique is leveled at Hezekiah, it

appears to contradict the presentation of Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18–19. This may
account for the omission of the details of Hezekiah’s war preparations in the
book of Kings, because the Deuteronomist sought to present Hezekiah as a
model of faith. However, the Chronicler both includes Hezekiah’s extensive
preparations for war and also presents him as a model of trust. The Chroni-
cler’s inclusion of both Hezekiah’s faithfulness as described in 2 Kings 18–19
and the extensive war preparations referred to in Isaiah 22 suggests that he was
attempting to harmonize his sources. However, the omission of the critique
cannot be overlooked and would not it into the category of harmonization. It is
possible that the Chronicler understood the critique found in Isaiah 22 as being
directed at the people rather than the king. In fact, Isa 22:8–11 consistently
addresses a plural audience and refers to the actions of a group, rather than an
individual. 33 The king is not clearly implied, nor is an individual singled out in
these verses. In Isa 22:15–25, Shebna is singled out for criticism and Eliakim
praised, but the king is not referred to in any instance. In fact, in Isa 22:18,
Shebna is castigated as “a disgrace to his master’s house,” which implies that
the master is not under judgment here. Since Shebna served during Hezekiah’s
reign, “master” probably refers to Hezekiah in this instance. At least, this is
how the Chronicler may have interpreted this chapter.
If this was the interpretive stance of the Chronicler in this instance, his
presentation of Hezekiah is explained. First, Hezekiah makes extensive prepa-
rations for war, as noted in Isaiah 22. Second, Hezekiah acts as a model of
trust in Yahweh, as emphasized in 2 Kings 18–19. 34 To emphasize Hezekiah’s
faith, the Chronicler presents Hezekiah as encouraging the people not to trust
in these extensive preparations for war (“the arm of lesh”) but instead to trust
in Yahweh alone.
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king
of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than
with him. With him is only the arm of lesh, but with us is the lord our God to
help us and to ight our battles. (2 Chr 32:7–8)

Thus, the Chronicler concludes that, although Hezekiah did all he could to
prepare for an Assyrian invasion, his heart fully trusted in Yahweh rather than
in his fortiication of Jerusalem.

33. J. Blenkinsopp argues that the use of the plural here refers to “Hezekiah and his
people” (Isaiah 1–39 [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 333).
34. P. S. Evans, “Sennacherib’s 701 Invasion into Judah: What Saith the Scrip-
tures?” in The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies
(ed. P. G. Kirkpatrick and T. Goltz; LHBOTS [JSOTSup] 489; London: T. & T. Clark,
2008) 57–77.
114 Paul S. Evans

Hezekiah’s Address to the People

Hezekiah’s attempt to hearten (‫ )וידבר על־לבבם‬his people by an encourag-
ing speech (2 Chr 32:7–8) is another of the Chronicler’s apparent divergences
from his sources. As Japhet has pointed out, the speech of Hezekiah “can eas-
ily be recognized as the Chronicler’s work.” 35 It conforms to the Chronicler’s
practice of adding addresses to the people, including the people’s response.
The language is particularly Chronistic, and the theological comments in 2 Chr
32:25–26 are most obviously the Chronicler’s. 36
However, what commentators have failed to note is the signal in the Chron-
icler’s Vorlage that Hezekiah had indeed spoken to the people. 2 Kgs 18:36
notes that “the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the
king had commanded, ‘Do not answer him’” (my italics). This verse clearly in-
dicates that Hezekiah had addressed the people. Of course, the content of the in-
serted speech was created by the Chronicler, but his method here may have been
similar to that of Thucydides, who endeavored to “make the speakers say what
was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adher-
ing as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.” 37 At this
point, we must keep in mind that what the Chronicler thought was the type of
speech demanded by the occasion was deeply inluenced by his own ideology
and view of Hezekiah. Nevertheless, his inserted speech at this point is in line
with a historiographical goal, not a purely ictive goal. Furthermore, his source
tells of the king’s commanding the people to be silent. Their obedience to this
command may have indicated to the Chronicler that Hezekiah encouraged them
enough that they boldly stood their ground and did not reply to the Assyrian
messengers. Thus, his speech to them must have been a persuasive, heartening
speech, similar to the one that the Chronicler composed for Hezekiah.
The Absence of Tirhakah
The Chronicler’s omission of the advance of Tirhakah is irst of all due to the
abbreviated nature of his account of the Assyrian invasion. 38 Tirhakah is only
mentioned in one verse, and his role in the historical event is unclear. 39 While

35. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 977.

36. Japhet notes phrases such as “be strong and of good courage” and “do not be
afraid or dismayed,” and so on, as recurrent phrases in Chronicles (ibid).
37. Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, book 1, chap. 1 (trans.
R. Crawley; provided by The Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu//
Thucydides/pelopwar.html [accessed 21 June 2011] n. p.
38. In this sort of narrative, it is common for minor characters to be omitted. See
H. J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development
of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW 221; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994) 156–71.
39. Some have argued that, although he was not king until 689, Tirhakah could
have been involved in a battle with Sennacherib and Egypt at Eltekeh as a prince. E.g.,
K. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) (2nd ed.; Warmin-
ster: Aris & Phillips, 1986) 385; C. van Leeuwen, “Sanchérib devant Jérusalem,” in
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 115

the role of the Cushites in the historical events surrounding the Assyrian inva-
sion of 701 b.c.e. has been debated, some have recently suggested that they ac-
tually played a quite pivotal role. 40 However, if the Chronicler’s only source for
Sennacherib’s invasion was 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37, this role would not
have been self-evident. In fact, Tirhakah is only mentioned in the ‘report’ or
‘rumor’ (‫ )ׁמועה‬that Sennacherib hears in 2 Kgs 19:9, which appears to be part
of the divine plot against him. This rumor partially fulills Isaiah’s prophecy of
2 Kgs 19:7, which predicted that Sennacherib would “hear a rumor/report and
return to his land.” Thus, the presence of Tirhakah is not even evidentially true
but may be understood to have been just a “rumor.” 41 Given the compendious
nature of his account, there is no reason for the Chronicler to mention the “ru-
mor,” especially when it does not appear to be the cause of the Assyrian retreat.
The Lack of a “Siege” of Jerusalem
Whether or not the Chronicler refers to a siege in 2 Chronicles 32 has been the
subject of some debate, the center of which surrounds the phrase ‫מצור בירוׁלם‬
in 2 Chr 32:10. The word ‫ מצור‬can mean either ‘siege’ or ‘fortress’, depending
on the context. Thus, two translations are possible: ‘the siege of Jerusalem’ or
‘the fortress of Jerusalem’. Note the two translation possibilities of 2 Chr 32:10
in the context of Sennacherib’s question:
‫כה אמר סנחריב מלך אׁור על־מה אתם בטחים‬
Thus says Sennacherib, King of Assyria, “On what are you trusting, . . .

‫ויׁבים במצור בירוׁלם׃‬

1. . . . that [you are] undergoing the siege of Jerusalem?”
2. . . . that [you are] remaining in the fortress of Jerusalem?”

Kaf–He: 1940–1965—Jubilee Volume, Published on the Occasion of the 25th Anniver-

sary of the Dutch O.T. Society (OtSt 14; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 260. Others have found the
mention of Tirhakah to suggest a second campaign by Sennacherib. E.g., W. H. Shea,
“Jerusalem under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice?” BAR 25 (1999) 36–44, 64.
Others ind the mention of Tirhakah to be pure anachronism and doubt his presence in
the Levant at that time: A. van der Kooij, “Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusa-
lems im Jahr 701 v. Chr,” ZDPV 102 (1986) 114.
40. E.g., D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1992) 353; L. L. Grabbe, “Of Mice and Dead Men: Herod-
otus 2.141 and Sennacherib’s Campaign in 701 bcE,” in ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The
Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (ed. L. L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London:
Sheield Academic Press, 2003) 119–40; E. A. Knauf, “Sennacherib at the Berezina,”
in ibid.,141–49; Evans, Invasion of Sennacherib.
41. This is exactly how some scholars have understood the reference: e.g., H. Ewald,
The History of Israel (London: Longmans, Green, 1878) 183; and Stade, “Miscellen.”
As van der Kooij writes, “The text of 19:7, 9a does not imply (at least not necessarily
so) that Tirhaka [sic] actually did advance to wage war at this time. On the contrary, it
is simply a rumour” (“Das assyrische Heer,” 114).
116 Paul S. Evans

The most frequent meaning of ‫ מצור‬is ‘siege’. However, the context appears to
argue against this translation since, in the Chronicler’s account, the Assyrian
army does not approach Jerusalem but instead remains with (‫ )עמו‬Sennacherib,
who is besieging Lachish (2 Chr 32:9). Sennacherib only sends ‘his servants’
(‫ )עבדיו‬to Jerusalem (2 Chr 32:9), not his army. In view of this narrative con-
text, some have argued for the latter translation above. 42
However, the lexical evidence appears to weigh in favor of translating ‫מצור‬
as ‘siege’. Outside this reference, every instance in the HB/OT in which ‫מצור‬
is used with the preposition ‫ב‬, it clearly refers to a siege. 43 In fact, the combi-
nation of the verb ‫ יׁב‬with ‫ מצור‬is only found here and in Jer 10:17 and seems
to be a technical phrase for undergoing siege. Furthermore, Jerusalem is never
referred to as ‫ מצור‬anywhere else, making the ‘fortress’ option unlikely. 44
Even though this is the case, it is still not clear that the Chronicler is actually
suggesting that Jerusalem was besieged, because the narrative context clearly
contradicts this statement. 45 Japhet has sensed this tension and argues that the
reason for the tension is the Chronicler’s literary method. She writes, “While
carefully reworking the story in contents and phrasing, the Chronicler still in-
sists on producing an adaptation of an existing text and not a new composition;
the price to be paid is the unavoidable tension between old and new.” 46 That
is to say, the Chronicler was constrained to be faithful to his source text, so he
had to refer to the siege of Jerusalem (which Japhet says is the “central point to
the whole event” in his Vorlage), even though his reworked account does not
have a siege of Jerusalem take place. 47
However, this explanation seems quite unlikely. First, the Chronicler was
not unusually constrained by his sources. Often he clearly contradicts the pre-
sentation of historical events in his Vorlage. For instance, in 2 Chronicles 28
Ahaz’s appeal to the Assyrian king for aid against Aram and Israel results in
military oppression by Assyria (2 Chr 28:20) rather than Assyrian assistance
against his foes, as in his Vorlage (2 Kgs 16:9). Second, the “siege of Jerusa-

42. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 383; J. M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; Gar-
den City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
43. Deut 20:19; 28:53, 55, 57; 2 Kgs 24:10, 25:2; Jer 10:17, 19:9, 52:5; Ezek 4:3;
Zech 12:2.
44. Selman argues against translating ‘fortress’ or ‘stronghold’, since ‫“ מצור‬is never
applied to Jerusalem in this way” (2 Chronicles [TOTC 11; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2008] 532 n. 118).
45. Though some have taken this statement to indicate a siege. E.g., E. Ben Zvi,
“Malleability and Its Limits: Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah as a Case-Study,”
in ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (ed. L. L. Grabbe;
JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheield Academic Press, 2003) 86; Kalimi, The
Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 387–89; Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 987.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 117

lem” does not appear to be the central point of 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37.
Though I have dealt with this issue at length elsewhere, 48 I ind it necessary to
take another brief look at whether the Chronicler’s Vorlage refers to a “siege”
of Jerusalem.
Various terms are used to describe situations of siege in Biblical Hebrew.
The word ‫ מצור‬is most commonly used to denote a siege. 49 Additionally, the
verb ‫‘ צור‬to besiege’ is frequently employed in such contexts. 50 The verb ‫חנה‬
‘to encamp’ and the noun ‫ מחנה‬in conjunction with ‫ על‬are also commonly
used in this regard. 51 The noun ‫‘ דיק‬siege towers’ and ‫‘ סללה‬siege mounds’ or
‘ramps’ are often employed in siege contexts. 52 Given the many terms avail-
able, it is signiicant that none of these terms is found in 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah
36–37 except in Isaiah’s denial that a siege will occur. 53 If 2 Kings 18–19/
Isaiah 36–37 was indicating a situation of siege, some siege language would
surely have been used.

48. Evans, Invasion of Sennacherib, 161–62.

49. E.g., ‫ בוא מצור‬refers to being besieged (cf. Deut 20:19; 2 Kgs 24:10, 25:2; Jer
52:5); ‫ ישב במצור‬is to undergo a siege (Jer 10:17; 2 Chr 32:10); ‫ מצור על‬denotes build-
ing siegeworks against a city (Deut 20:20; Ezek 4:2; ‫ שים מצור על‬indicates setting a
siege against a city (Mic 4:14); ‫ היה במצור‬indicates being under siege (Ezek 4:3; Zech
12:2). See “‫מצור‬,” HALOT 2:623. Nah 3:14 refers to ‫ מי מצור‬the ‘waters of siege’.
Closely related is the noun ‫‘ מצורה‬siegework’ (cf. Isa 29:3).
50. E.g., Deut 20:12, 19; 28:52; 1 Sam 11:1, 20:15, 23:8; 1 Kgs 8:37, 16:15; 2 Kgs
6:24, 16:5, 17:5, 18:9; Isa 1:8, 21:2, 29:3; Jer 39:1; 1 Chr 20:1; 2 Chr 6:28; Dan 1:1.
The verb ‫ צוק‬is used similarly, though less frequently and does not appear to be a tech-
nical term for siege, but simply means to ‘harass’ or ‘press hard’ (cf. Jer 19:9). The verb
‫ סמך‬is used in Ezek 24:2 in this sense, but the word basically denotes ‘to befall’. See
“‫סמך‬,” HALOT 2:759. ‫ לחם‬is often used in the context of such pericopes, but clearly
does not mean ‘siege’ but ‘to do battle’ etc. (as 2 Kgs 16:5 makes clear).
51. For ‫חנה‬, see Josh 10:34, 21; Judg 6:4, 20:19; 1 Sam 11:1; 2 Sam 12:28; 2 Kgs
25:1; Isa 29:3; Jer 50:29, 52:4; Ps 27:3. For ‫מחנה‬, see Ezek 4:2, Ps 27:3.
52. For ‫דיק‬, see 2 Kgs 25:1; Jer 52:4; Ezek 4:2, 17:17, 21:27, 26:8; 2 Chr 32:10.
This word is often paired with ‫בנה‬. For ‫סללה‬, see 2 Sam 20:15; Jer 6:6, 32:24, 33:4;
Ezek 4:2, 17:17, 21:27, 26:8. The hapax legomenon ‫ בחון‬is also used to refer to ‘siege
towers’ in Isa 23:13. Also, in Qoh 9:13, ‫ מצודים‬refers to ‘siegeworks’ or ‘towers’. Isa
29:3 has ‫ מצב‬for ‘tower’. Ezekiel alone uses the term ‫‘ כרים‬battering rams’ (Ezek 4:2,
21:27).
53. Which mentions ‫‘ סללה‬siege mounds’. Cf. 2 Kgs 19:32. When the Assyrian em-
issaries come to Jerusalem, it is only said that they ‫‘ עלה‬went up’, they ‫‘( בוא‬entered’ or
‘came’), and they ‫‘ עמד‬stood’. The word ‫‘ עלה‬to go up’ is sometimes used in military
situations, in combination with other more explicit battle verbs (e.g., ‫מלחמה‬, Isa 7:1;
‫צור‬, Isa 21:2). Or when ‫ עלה‬is in combination with ‫( על‬e.g., 1 Kgs 20:22, 2 Kgs 18:13),
it can mean ‘to ight against’; however, see Gen 38:12, where the same combination is
not in a military situation. Of course, in the Hiphil form, this same combination refers
to the ofering of burnt oferings (e.g., Lev 2:12, 1 Kgs 18:29, 2 Kgs 16:12). But on its
own, it never indicates such a military threat. Cf. my Invasion of Sennacherib, 161–62.
118 Paul S. Evans

However, 2 Kings 18/Isaiah 36 does have a military force approaching Je-

rusalem. In 2 Kgs 18:17, a ‘heavy force’ (‫ )חיל כבד‬is said to accompany the
Assyrian emissaries to Jerusalem. However, if the Chronicler understood this
‫ חיל כבד‬to be a military contingent accompanying the emissaries, suicient to
protect the emissaries but too small to be a real threat to the city itself (as it
appears to be elsewhere, 2 Kgs 6:19–20), 54 when the emissaries left Jerusalem
in 2 Kgs 19:9, the Chronicler may have understood the military contingent
to have accompanied them at this point as well. In fact, some scholars have
also understood the accompanying ‫ חיל כבד‬to have left Jerusalem with the
Rabshakeh, rather than besieging Jerusalem. 55 If this was the Chronicler’s un-
derstanding of his Vorlage, then it would also explain why the Assyrian army
did not encroach on Jerusalem in his narrative but remained at Lachish with
Sennacherib.
Regardless of whether modern historical reconstructions conclude that a
signiicant military force did blockade Jerusalem or not (or whether the Assyr-
ian annals suggest this), for our purposes here, it is signiicant that the narrative
in 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37 does not clearly present a siege of Jerusalem. 56
If we assume that the Chronicler’s only source for his account of Sennach-
erib’s invasion was 2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37, then it is understandable that
he did not narrate a siege of Jerusalem himself. 57 It is only if one assumes that
54. The phrase ‘heavy force’ (‫ )חיל כבד‬is used in 2 Kings 6 to refer to a military
force that is led into the city of Samaria by Elisha (2 Kgs 6:19–20). This military con-
tingent (‫ )חיל כבד‬appears small enough to enter the city and, once there, be destroyed
easily by the inhabitants, for once the king of Samaria sees this ‫ חיל כבד‬inside the city,
Israel’s king asks, “Father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?” (2 Kgs 6:21). Therefore,
it appears from the context in 2 Kings 6 that ‫ חיל כבד‬is used to denote a small military
force appropriate for attacking a small city in order to capture an individual but inap-
propriate for the task of defeating a larger city such as Samaria—despite the fact that
the group successfully entered through the city walls.
55. In his examination of the second Assyrian threat enumerated in 2 Kings 19,
Honor assumes that the military contingent has left with the Assyrian ambassadors.
Regarding the military contingent itself, Honor notes that some scholars “do not believe
that these verses refer to the blockade mentioned in the Assyrian Annals” and that they
interpret the ‫“ חיל כבד‬as referring to a military escort rather than to a large army” (Sen-
nacherib’s Invasion of Palestine, 74 n. 40).
56. It is important to read the text on its own terms. The text may be historically
inaccurate, but we should allow it to be so, rather than making it conform to what we
understand (through other evidences) to have happened.
57. If a siege of Jerusalem really did take place in 701, it is at least a possibility that
the Chronicler knew of it by oral transmission. However, most historians now hold that
in fact a siege of Jerusalem did not take place, that the Assyrian annals do not refer to
a siege, and that there is no archaeological evidence for a 701 siege of Jerusalem. See
Knauf, “Sennacherib at the Berezina,” 145–46; W. R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Cam-
paign to Judah: New Studies (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East 18; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 133; W. Mayer and J. Assante, “Sennacherib’s Campaign
 Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative 119

the Chronicler had knowledge of the Assyrian annals or understood 2 Kings

18–19 in the same way as modern commentators who allow the Assyrian an-
nals to provide the interpretive category for understanding 2 Kings 18–19/
Isaiah 36–37 that we would conclude that the Chronicler was consciously con-
tradicting his sources and attempting to reinvent the historical event according
to his ideology.
This still leaves unanswered the question of how to account for the phrase
“siege of Jerusalem” in 2 Chr 32:10. Isaac Kalimi has suggested that, despite
the fact that there was no actual Assyrian siege of Jerusalem historically, the
Chronicler presented Jerusalem under siege in 2 Chronicles 32 “for the pur-
pose of glorifying the great miracle that the righteous Hezekiah experienced.
That is, Jerusalem, its king, and its people were saved despite the Assyrian
siege to which they were subjected.” 58 However, Kalimi’s conclusion here ig-
nores the literary context of this reference to a Jerusalem siege. First, it is must
be noted that the narrator does not refer to the siege but only the Assyrian emis-
sary. Second, the narrator appears to deride the Assyrian messengers by noting
that they were sent to Jerusalem to force surrender by merely “crying aloud”
(2 Chr 32:18)—an obviously foolish stratagem. Finally, since the Assyrian
messenger’s reference to a siege of Jerusalem directly contradicts the facts as
narrated (no army is said to encroach upon Jerusalem), the statements of the
Assyrian emissary are clearly unreliable. 59 The Chronicler does not present an
actual siege of Jerusalem but only Assyrian boasts and threats.
However, even in the Chronicler’s choice to have the Assyrian messenger
refer to a siege of Jerusalem in 2 Chr 32:10, he was probably following the lead
of his Vorlage. In 2 Kgs 18:27, the Rabshakeh speaks to those who were sitting
on the wall and hearing his speech to Hezekiah’s emissaries and predicts that
they are going “to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine.” While
this threat is clearly a reference to the results of siege warfare, in the context
of 2 Kings 19/Isaiah 37 it appears to be a threat of future conditions should a
siege occur. 60 However, in keeping with this empty threat, the Chronicler has

of 701 bcE: The Assyrian View,” in ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennach-
erib in 701 BCE (ed. L. L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; ESHM 4; London: Sheield Academic
Press, 2003) 179–81.
58. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 388. Kalimi interprets the
Assyrian annals as “propaganda” and concludes that there really was no siege of Jeru-
salem (p. 389).
59. This narrative is a reliable third-person account in which the narrator can be
trusted absolutely (R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative [London: Allen & Unwin,
1981] 116). Therefore, when a character’s speech contradicts the narrator’s reliable
statements, the character’s speech must be judged untrue (see Y. Amit, Reading Bibli-
cal Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001]
93–96).
60. For more on this, see my Invasion of Sennacherib, 157.
120 Paul S. Evans

the emissaries talk as if the siege of Jerusalem was presently underway, which
heightens the negative characterization of the Assyrian messengers.

Conclusion
In this paper, I suggest that most of the divergences of 2 Chronicles 32 from
2 Kings 18–19/Isaiah 36–37 are due to the critical interpretation of the Chroni-
cler’s sources rather than an imaginative attempt to correct his source or ignore
history for exegetical or theological ends. His interpretation of these sources
need not be viewed as midrashic or purely exegetical in nature but can be un-
derstood as the work of an ancient “historian.” This is not to conclude that the
Chronicler’s interaction with and interpretation of these sources was purely
historiographical in nature. It is highly unlikely that exegetical and theolog-
ical interests can be separated from historiographical interests in this ancient
writer. 61 The Chronicler’s work employed exegesis for historiographical and
theological ends. 62 Separating these proposals for explaining the Chronicler’s
purpose as mutually exclusive is reductionistic and does not do justice to the
multifaceted work of the Chronicler. 63
61. As McKenzie points out, in ancient historiography, a distinction between his-
tory and theology did not exist (S. L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles [Nashville: Abingdon,
2004] 34).
62. For examples of studies that emphasize one of these aspects (exegesis, history,
or theology) of the Chronicler’s method, see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Un-
tersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); I. Kalimi, “Was the Chronicler a Historian?”
in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie;
JSOTSup 238; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1997); K. G. Hoglund, “The Chron-
icler as Historian: A Comparativist Perspective,” in ibid., 19–29. P. R. Ackroyd, The
Chronicler in His Age (JSOTSup 101; Sheield: JSOT Press, 1991); Coggins, The First
and Second Books of the Chronicles (CBC 13–14; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976) 3–5; Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 9–10, 23.
63. As with many of the essays in this volume, this paper was originally presented
in the Ancient Historiography Seminar at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of
Biblical Studies, and I am grateful for the feedback given by the seminar participants. In
particular, I would like to thank G. N. Knoppers (Penn State) for his written comments
on that early draft of this paper.