Sancheriv's Campaign and Assyrian Sources/0

Sancheriv's Campaign and Assyrian Sources

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The story of Sancheriv's campaign against Yehuda is one of the most documented events in Tanakh.  Both Biblical and Assyrian sources speak of the attack in multiple places, and archaeological finds provide further material evidence of the event  On the whole the sources complement and elucidate each other, though there are points of difference as well. Together, they provide the reader with a fuller understanding of the momentous battle and its significance.

Historical Background

Assyria was the major power in the Ancient Near East in the 8th century BCE, conquering lands near and far. Its vanquished territories were forced to pay tribute, and often rebelled.  To quell such insurrections, Assyria embarked on punitive campaigns, and instituted a policy of population displacement.  Thus, when Hoshea, the last king of Yisrael, failed to pay tribute, Shalmanesser¹ besieged and conquered Shomron, exiling its inhabitants.

Yehuda, in the meantime, maintained a policy of appeasement, saving it from the fate of its neighbors.² However, in the middle of Chizkiyahu's reign, for reasons not shared in Tanakh, Chizkiyahu changed tactics and rebelled as well. The decision was likely related to the death of Sargon II, in 705. The Assyrian king had died in battle and his corpse was never taken to burial. This was interpreted by the generation as an omen, and rebellions sprouted up throughout the kingdom, starting with Merodakh Baladan of Bavel in the west.³  Soon after, those in Syria-Palestine attempted to throw off the Assyrian yoke as well,⁴ leading to Sancheriv's campaign to the area.

Biblical Sources

Tanakh discusses Sancheriv's campaign at length in Melakhim II 18-19, Yeshayahu 36-37, and Divrei HaYamim II 32.⁵

•  Melakhim II – The account in Melakhim II is the fullest of the three sources, sharing how Chizkiyahu rebelled against Assyria, leading Sancheriv to retaliate in the fourteenth year of Chizkiyahu's reign. Sancheriv captured the fortified cities of Yehuda, prompting Chizkiyahu to send him a large tribute so that he would not attack Yerushalayim. For unknown reasons, the tribute did not have the desired effect⁶ and emissaries of Sancheriv returned to the city to convince the people to surrender.⁷  Chizkiyahu prays and Yeshayahu tells him not to fear, for Sancheriv will return to his land and die there.⁸ Though a brief respite is granted when the Assyrians are forced to deal with a Kushite threat, the Assyrians promise to return.  A second prayer leads to miraculous intervention as an angel strikes the Assyrian camp, killing 185,000 people and causing them to retreat.⁹
• Yeshayahu – Yeshayahu's version of the campaign is almost identical to that of Melakhim, leaving out only the discussion of Chizkiyahu's original tribute. Other passages in the book further highlight the destruction wrought by Assyria or speak of the miraculous salvation, though Sancheriv himself is not explicitly mentioned.¹⁰

• Divrei HaYamim II – The account in Divrei HaYamim, though relatively brief,¹¹ provides information regarding Chizkiyahu's preparations for Sancheriv's attack that is lacking in the other Biblical sources. It tells how Chizkiyahu fortified the city walls,¹² made shields and weapons, appointed military captains and encouraged his soldiers.¹³ His most well known act is his plugging of the springs outside the city and diverting the water through "Chizkiyahu's tunnel"¹⁴ to ensure that the enemy could not benefit from the water¹⁵ while  Israel could sustain itself throughout a prolonged siege. 

Extra-Biblical Sources

Sancheriv's campaign is well documented in Assyrian sources, as it is described in detail in the Assyrian annals and also portrayed pictorially in the Lakhish reliefs found in the palace of Nineveh.  Archaeological evidence provides further evidence of the campaign:

• Assyrian Annals – Copies of Sancheriv's annals have been preserved on three monumental prisms¹⁶ known as the the Taylor Prism,¹⁷ the Jerusalem Prism,¹⁸ and the Oriental Institute Prism.¹⁹ The inscriptions are almost identical²⁰ and constitute the latest and most comprehensive editions of the annals.²¹   According to the inscription, Sancheriv's campaign was an attempt to quell rebellions in Tzidon, Ahskelon, Ekron and Yehuda.  The four had formed a coalition against Assyria, with expectation of aid from Egypt. Chizkiyahu is mentioned in two sections.  In the context of the insurrection of Ekron, we are told that the Philistines overthrew their king, who had been a loyal vassal to Sancheriv, and "handed him over to Hezekiah, the Jew" for safekeeping.  Later, Sancheriv tells of the invasion of Yehuda. He boasts of having laid siege to 46 cities, taking 200,150 captives, imprisoning Chizkiyahu in Jerusalem, and plundering the towns.  The account ends with a description of the extensive tribute paid to Sancheriv by Chizkiyahu.

• Azekah Inscription – This tablet was discovered in the Library of Ashurbanipal²² and the Inscription describes Assyria's besieging and destroying of Azekah in the time of Chizkiyahu.²³ It further connects the event to Chizkiyahu's prior annexation of a Philistine city, whose name is not legible on the tablet. Scholars debate whether the inscription speaks of the reign of Sancheriv, or of the earlier reign of Sargon II:
• Campaign of Sancheriv – According to N. Na'aman,²⁴ the tablet describes the campaign of Sancheriv,²⁵ and complements the descriptions found in both Tanakh and the annals.  It reveals that, as part of his preparations for the rebellion, Chizkiyahu had annexed certain Philistine cities²⁶ to ensure their loyalty. Moreover, it suggests that Azekah was the first of the "46" Judean towns to fall after Sancheriv attacked the Philistines.²⁷ 
• Campaign of Sargon II – G. Galil,²⁸ in contrast, suggests that the tablet speaks of Sargon II's campaign against Ashdod in 712 BCE.²⁹  Before the campaign, Yamani, king of Ashdod, had sent a letter³⁰ to Edom, Moav, Peleshet, and Yehuda asking them to send word to Egypt to take part in a coalition against Assyria.³¹  In response, Sargon sent an army to punish Ashdod.³²  He then campaigned against Yehuda as well, conquering Azekah as a warning not to act against Assyrian interests. According to Galil, the inscription suggests that even before 701, Chizkiyahu had played with the idea of rebellion and already tasted the wrath of Assyria.
• Lakhish Relief – Sancheriv recorded his siege and victory over Lakhish, apparently the second biggest city in Yehuda,³³ in a series of wall reliefs that cover an entire room in his palace in Nineveh.³⁴ Together they tell the story of the battle.  One panel depicts the Assyrian soldiers, some holding long spears, others armed with bows and arrows, and yet others with slingshots. Another section of the relief highlights the besieged city, depicting the ramps and battering rams used in the attack.  The relief then depicts the defeated Judeans, some dead, and others deported into exile. The Assyrians carry the looted booty, including huge goblets and even furniture. A final scene portrays Sancheriv on his throne, as prisoners bow in submission, or are executed, before him.  An inscription reads "Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, set up a throne and the booty of Lakhish passed before him."
• Excavations at Lakhish – Extensive excavations at Tel Lakhish were carried out  between 1973 and 1994³⁵ under the direction of Prof. D. Ussishkin.  The archaeological finds from these digs provide further material evidence of the campaign.  One of the most significant finds was an Assyrian siege ramp, above which were extensive fortifications.³⁶ The ramp and defenses appear similar to the depictions on the relief,³⁷ and attest to the severity of the attack.   Another discovery was a series of jugs whose handles contained a seal with the imprint "למלך" and date to the reign of Chizkiyahu.  Ussishkin theorizes that these were storage vessels produced by Chizkiyahu's government as part of preparations for the Assyrian attack.³⁸

Relationship Between the Sources: Points of Contact

In several instances, the background provided by the annals sheds light on verses in Tanakh whose significance (or relationship to the rebellion) might otherwise be less apparent.

I. Scope of the Rebellion – While Tanakh initially gives the impression that Chizkiyahu was acting alone, the Assyrian sources clarify that his insurrection was part of a much larger series of rebellions.  In light of this, certain verses take on new meaning:

• "הוּא הִכָּה אֶת פְּלִשְׁתִּים" – Immediately after stating that Chizkiyahu rebelled against Assyria, Melakhim shares that he smote the Philistines.  From reading Melakhim alone, one might have thought that this was unconnected to the rebellion.  More likely, though, the verse refers to Chizkiayhu's role in organizing the coalition against Assyria.  From the annals it is known that in an effort to strengthen the alliance, he helped the people of Ekron overthrow their king who had been Sancheriv's loyal vassal.  This verse suggests that he also attacked other Philistine regions to ensure that they sided against Assyria.³⁹
• Egypt's role – From Melakhim, one might have thought that it was mere coincidence (or Divine intervention) that Egypt attacked specifically while Yehuda was under threat. The Assyrian sources, however, attest to the crucial role played by Egypt in the coalition and how it depended on their aid. Ravshakeh's comment, "עַל מִי בָטַחְתָּ כִּי מָרַדְתָּ בִּי. עַתָּה הִנֵּה בָטַחְתָּ לְּךָ עַל מִשְׁעֶנֶת הַקָּנֶה הָרָצוּץ הַזֶּה עַל מִצְרַיִם...",  is not a mere taunt but aptly reflects the rebels' assumption that Egypt would intervene on their behalf.⁴⁰

• Merodakh Baladan – It is possible that the visit of Merodakh Baladan⁴¹ to Chizkiyahu in Melakhim II 20 is also related to the rebellions against Assyria.⁴² Though he ostensibly visits due to Chizkiyahu's sickness, it is likely that his real intention was to sway Chizkiyahu to make an alliance and aid in his attempt to topple Assyria.⁴³

II. Scope of the Campaign – Sefer Melakhim barely speaks of the devastation wrought on Yehuda as a whole, preferring to focus on the fate of Yerushalayim. The material finds and Sancheriv's claim of smiting 46 cities (even if hyperbolic), however, testify to the high degree of destruction in the country.  This might bear on one's interpretation of several undated prophecies in Yeshayahu and Mikhah which describe Yehuda in ruins, and support claims that they refer specifically to the era of Sancheriv.

• Yeshayahu 1's description of the ravage done to Yehuda and Yerushalayim's lone status would appear to match the era: "אַרְצְכֶם שְׁמָמָה עָרֵיכֶם שְׂרֻפוֹת אֵשׁ ... וְנוֹתְרָה בַת צִיּוֹן כְּסֻכָּה בְכָרֶם כִּמְלוּנָה בְמִקְשָׁה כְּעִיר נְצוּרָה."
• Yeshayahu 29's discussion of the besieged city of Jerusalem and its miraculous salvation similarly appears to refer to Sancheriv.
• Mikhah 1 describes devastation approaching Yehuda and Yerushalayim כִּי אֲנוּשָׁה" מַכּוֹתֶיהָ כִּי בָאָה עַד יְהוּדָה נָגַע עַד שַׁעַר עַמִּי עַד יְרוּשָׁלָ‍ִם" and can easily refer to Sancheriv's campaign.
• The various prophecies against requesting aid from Egypt, such as Yeshayahu 31, might similarly relate to this time period.

Relationship Between the Sources: Discrepancies

Scholars note two main apparent contradictions between Tanakh and the Assyrian sources, one relating to the outcome of the battle and one relating to the timing of the Egyptian attack:

I. The Outcome of the Battle

Though both Tanakh and the Assyrian annals agree about the basic facts of the campaign (Sancheriv attacked Yehuda, captured many of its cities, reached Yerushalayim and was paid a large tribute)⁴⁴ they differ greatly regarding the outcome of the battle.  Only Tanakh records the miraculous salvation of Yehuda and defeat of the Assyrians.  The annals, in contrast, imply that Sancheriv was the victor.

Prof. H. Tadmor⁴⁵ suggests that a close study of the literary structure of the annals reveals that in reality the two sources do not contradict at all: 

• Schematic  structure of the annals – Tadmor points out that the annals were written according to certain set formulas⁴⁶ in which description of conquered territories always included discussion of the same four components: 1) the fate and punishment of the enemy king, 2) the capture and destruction of the capital and other cities, 3) replacement of the king by a loyal vassal, and 4) payment of tribute.⁴⁷  These four elements are indeed found in Sancheriv's description of his conquest of Tzidon, Ahskelon, and Ekron, but, significantly, they are not all present in the discussion regarding Yehuda. 
• The exception: Yehuda – In the description of the attack on Yehuda, Chizkiyahu is not said to be captured or killed, only imprisoned in his royal residence, "like a bird in a cage."⁴⁸ There is no mention of the destruction of the capital city or of replacement by a loyal vassal, only a very elaborate description of the tribute given. Tadmor posits the obvious explanation for the unique account: Sancheriv did not portray a complete victory because there was none;  in the end Yerushalayim was not vanquished and Chizkiyahu was not ousted.
• Compensating for the missing victory – Prof. Tadmor suggests that Sancheriv found himself forced to compensate for a reality that did not match a literary formula designed to relay total victory.  The king, thus, attempted to obscure the truth, playing with his formulaic structure.  Chizkiyahu is made a prisoner, but in Jerusalem. Loyal vassals are given control, but rather than replacing the king, they rule only over the smaller towns.  Most telling, though, is that Sancheriv appends to his annals an extensive and unparalleled description of the tribute paid by Yehuda,⁴⁹ as if listing all the material gains will hide the fact that Yerushalayim itself was not won.
• The Lakhish relief – When deciding to commemorate his campaign in pictures, Sancheriv chose to depict his conquest of Lakhish specifically. This, too, suggests that it, rather than a conquest over Yerushalayim, was his biggest victory.⁵⁰  As no other conquests from the campaign merit such a grand commemoration, Tadmor suggests that the entire artistic endeavor might have been an attempt to cover up the fact that Yerushalayim was not defeated.

II. Egypt's Intervention

A second point of contrast between the annals and Tanakh relates to the chronology of the conflict between Assyria and Egypt.  According to Tanakh, the Assyrians left to deal with the Egyptian-Ethiopian threat during their campaign against Yehuda, while the annals present Egypt-Ethiopia as intervening earlier, when Assyria was fighting the Philistines in Ekron.

• G. Galil⁵¹ suggests that the contradiction is easily resolved if one posits that the annals are not written chronologically, but rather topically.⁵²  The historiographer recorded the history of the campaign region by region, even though events certainly overlapped.⁵³ Thus, the battle with Egypt mentioned in the annals in the context of the Philistines is identical to that mentioned in Tanakh, and occurred only after Sancheriv had approached Yerushalayim.
• N. Na'aman,⁵⁴ in contrast, suggests that Egypt went to aid the coalition on two different occasions, and the battle at Eltakeh, described in the annals, is not identical with the approach of Tirhaka mentioned in Tanakh. Though Assyria had forced Egypt to retreat after they came to assist the Philistines, they did not pursue them, allowing Egypt to regroup, get reinforcements, and return to fight after Assyria attacked Yehuda.⁵⁵

Significance of the Story Upon reading Tanakh one wonders at the press space given to Sancheriv's attack. While the initial conquest of Yerushalayim is described in all of 5 verses in Sefer Shemuel, Tanakh devotes a full 5 chapters to this battle!  The above discussion helps the reader understand why.  At stake in this battle was the very existence of the Kingdom of Yehuda. Had it been conquered (given our knowledge of the rest of the campaigns, a very likely possibility), its fate would have been like that of Israel and the rest of the region – deportation and the loss of any independent identity.  Hashem's miraculous intervention not only saved Yerushalayim, but preserved the nation as a whole.

¹ In Assyrian sources, the next king, Sargon, takes credit for the destruction.

² See, for instance, how Achaz even turns to Assyria to aid him against an attack by Aram and Israel, saying, "עַבְדְּךָ וּבִנְךָ אָנִי עֲלֵה וְהוֹשִׁעֵנִי" (Melakhim II 16:7).

³ See discussion below that his visit to Chizkiyahu described in Melakhim II 20 might have been an attempt to get Chizkiyahu to support his revolt.

⁴ As Sancheriv (the new Assyrian king), was busy retaliating against Bavel, it was an opportune time to do so.

⁵ Many other chapters throughout the first half of Yeshayahu (see discussion below) also allude to the threat, as does Mikhah. [See RadakMikhah 1:9About R. David Kimchi.]

⁶ Commentators question why Sancheriv attacked Yehuda if Chizkiyahu had already submitted through the sending of tribute.  Abarbanel suggests that Sancheriv tricked Chizkiyahu, leading him to believe that a tribute would suffice, even though he always intended to quell the rebellion with force, while ShadalYeshayahu 36:2About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto opines that Chizkiyahu's tribute fell short of the Assyrian's demands.  According to both, the verses describe two stages of one campaign.  RadakMikhah 1:9About R. David Kimchi, in contrast, suggests that really the verses describe two distinct campaigns.  After the initial tribute Sancheriv was appeased, but when Chizkiyahu once again rebelled at some later date, Sancheriv returned and renewed the attack. 
Modern scholars continue the debate, with some suggesting that there was but one campaign and others raising the possibility that there were two. See G. Galil, "מסע סנחריב למערב : היסטוריה והיסטוריוגראפיה", Zion 53 (1988): 1-12, and opinions cited there. See also: W. Shea, "Jerusalem Under Siege," BAR 25:6 (1999): 36-44, and M. Cogan, "Sennacherib's Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?," BAR 27:1 (2007): 40-69.

⁷ The chapter discusses at length the various arguments made by Ravshakeh (Sancheriv's messenger) to dishearten the people and sway them to surrender. He tells them that their reliance on aid from Egypt is misguided, for Egypt will not be a reliable ally, and questions whether the Judeans have enough horses to battle Assyria.  He further points to Assyria's many previous conquests, suggesting that there is no reason that Yehuda's fate should differ.  He also invokes religious arguments, pointing out that he comes at the directive of Hashem.  As such, and in the light of the fact that the gods of all the other lands did not save their inhabitants, Yehuda has no reason to think they will be saved by Hashem.  In suggesting that the people submit, he alludes to Assyria's policy of deportation, telling the people: "וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּאַרְצְכֶם".

⁸ According to Tanakh, Sancheriv was killed by two of his sons at some point after his return to Assyria.  Though extra-Biblical sources date the king's death to 681 BCE, twenty years after our story, Tanakh likely juxtaposed the fact to the rebellion to highlight the fulfillment of Yeshayahu's words.
While Babylonian sources, like Tanakh, claim that Sancheriv was killed by his son, Assyrian sources allude to his murder, but leave the circumstances obscure. Thus, in the Annals of Ashurbanipal, Ashurbanipal, the grandson of Sancheriv, records: "The others, I smashed alive with the very same statues of protective deities with which they had smashed my own grandfather Sennacherib."  Prof. S. Parpola, "The Murderer of Senacherrib",  Death in Mesopotamia, ed. Prof. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen, 1980): 171-182, attempts to bring evidence from a somewhat fragmentary letter surviving from the period (Assyrian and Babylonian Letters XI, No.1091) that Arda-Mulišši, the eldest son of Sancheriv, who had been passed over for kingship, was the murderer. He identifies this Arda-Mulišši with Adramelekh of Tanakh. In Berossus' History of Babylonia he, too, names the murderer as Adramelos.

⁹ Josephus interprets the angelic strike to have taken the form of some sort of Divine plague.  The Greek historian, Herodotus, also preserves an account of a Divinely engineered decimation of the Assyrian army, though he presents them as fighting Egypt.  In his version, the Assyrians are attacked by field mice, who devour all their ammunition, rendering them defenseless. [As mice, being carriers of plague, are Greek symbols of pestilence, it is possible that there is some connection between the accounts brought by Josephus and Herodotus.  Then again, Herodotus does not claim that the mice brought human death, only that they ruined their ammunition.]

¹⁰ Yeshayahu 7 and Yeshayahu 8, for instance, describe how Assyria has spread throughout Yehuda, reaching the capital: "עַד צַוָּאר יַגִּיעַ". Yeshayahu 10 speaks of Assyria's gloating and their ultimate destruction, and Yeshayahu 31 shares that in the end: וְנָפַל אַשּׁוּר בְּחֶרֶב לֹא אִישׁ.  Though not all agree that all these verses refer to Sancheriv's campaign specifically, they nonetheless contribute to the reader's appreciation of the threat represented by Assyria.

¹¹ It omits the discussion of Chizkiyahu's tribute and shortens the description of the Assyrian negotiations, Chizkiyahu's prayers and Yeshayahu's encouragement.

¹² Yeshayahu 22:9-11 alludes to this as well.  The description of destroying houses to use the stones for strengthening the wall suggests that the fortifications needed to be built in haste and there was no time to quarry new stones.

¹³ Y. Aharoni, ארץ ישראל בתקופת המקרא, (Jerusalem, 1988):295, suggests that the building of storage houses and horse stalls mentioned in the summary of his reign (Divrei HaYamim II 32:27-30) were also part of the preparations for an Assyrian siege, as Chizkiyahu both stored food and increased the number of horses for his army.

¹⁴ This engineering feat is also mentioned in Melakhim II 20:20 and in Yeshayahu 22:9-11. The tunnel was discovered in 1838 by E. Robinson, and is now open to the public in the City of David.  It stretches 533 meters from the Gichon Spring to the Shiloach Pool.  In 1880, an inscription was found on the walls of the tunnel which recounts how the men digging it worked from opposite directions and met in the middle. [See, though, A Grossberg, "כיצד התכונן חזקיהו למצור סנחריב" inחידושים  בחקר ירושלים י"א (Ramat Gan, 2006): 113-128, who suggests that the diverting of the water and building of the tunnel were distinct and that the latter only occurred later, as there was not sufficient time to do so before Chizkiyahu attacked.]

¹⁵ See Sancheriv's boast, "אֲנִי קַרְתִּי וְשָׁתִיתִי מַיִם זָרִים" (Melakhim II 19:24), which suggests that in other battles, he did manage to benefit from his enemies' water sources.

¹⁶ All three prisms are hexagonal in shape, made of baked clay, and stand about one foot high. The inscriptions are written in Akkadian cuneiform.

¹⁷ The prism is currently housed in the British museum. It is named after Colonel R. Taylor who acquired it in 1830.

¹⁸ This copy is found in the Israel Museum.

¹⁹ This monument is housed in the Oriental Institute in Chicago.

²⁰ The dates on the prisms attest that, despite the similarity, they were not all written at the same time, with the Jerusalem and Taylor Prisms dating to 691 BCE and the Oriental Institute Prism dating to 689 BCE.

²¹ There are many other copies of Sancheriv's annals, but most are fragmentary in nature. [These, in contrast, detail all eight of Sancheriv's campaigns.] The earliest account of the campaign to Yehuda actually dates to 700 BCE, only a year after the battles.  It is known as the Rassam Cylinder, named after the archaeologist who discovered it in the late 1870's. It differs from the account on these prisms mainly with regards to the description of the tribute paid by Chizkiyahu, being more extensive than the other accounts. [See discussion below.]

²² Several Akkadian cuneiform tablets were discovered by H. Rawlinson in 1903, but were first identified as belonging to a single tablet by N. Na’aman in 1974. [Initially scholars believed that one tablet related to the military campaign of Tiglat Pileser III, 3and the other to the campaign of Sargon II.]  The tablet is currently housed in the British Museum.

²³ As the name is not totally preserved on the tablet, and only the theophoric ending is clearly legible, earlier scholars assumed that it referred to the king Azaryahu/ Uziyahu.

²⁴ See N. Na'aman, "מסעות מלכי אשור ליהודה לאור תעודה אשורית חדשה," Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 2 (1977): 164-180.

²⁵ He supports this claim from the following (see his article cited above, for other proofs):

• There are several expressions in the tablet which match the language of Sancheriv in his annals
• No Assyrian documents mention a campaign of Sargon into Yehuda, whereas many attest to Sancheriv's campaign.
• Azekah is described as being "between my border and Yehuda" which would only make sense after Ashdod was annexed to Assyria in 712.  If the campaign mentioned in the inscription first took place in 712 it would be too early to refer to Ashdod as "my borders". [Cf. G. Galil's opposing argument regarding this in the note below.]

²⁶ See Melakhim II 18:8  and discussion below that the verse might refer to the annexation described here. Na'aman proposes that the annexed city was Gat, and points to the mention of Gat in Mikhah 1:10 (whose context is also the destruction wrought by Sancheriv's campaign.)

²⁷ Na'aman assumes that the Assyrian annals are chronological and that from Ekron, Sancheriv would have travelled to Azekah. In addition, one of the first lines of the Azekah  inscription refers to the king having taken tribute from a city (whose name is not preserved).  Na'aman assumes that the line must refer to one of the Philistine towns just destroyed.

²⁸ See G. Galil,  "היחסים בין יהודה ואשור בימי סרגון ב," Zion 57 (1992): 111-134 and G. Galil, "Conflicts Between Assyrian Vassals", Bulletin 6:1 (1992): 55-63.

²⁹ He supports his claim from the following:

• The text's rendering of Ashur as Anshur fits the era of Sargon, as such a spelling reflects the spelling in his time period, but is not evidenced in any of Sancheriv's writings.
• Stylistically and lexically, the inscription is very similar to Sargon's "Letter to the God Assur".
• The reference to Azekah being "between my land and Judah" can only reflect a period in which Azekah was an Assyrian province, which is true in 712 but not in 701, during Sancheriv's reign, when it was once again just a vassal state.  [Cf. N. Na'aman's comments regarding this above].

³⁰ This has been preserved in what is known as the Nineveh Prism, originally published by H. Winckler.  It tells of a previous campaign against Ashdod which resulted in the overthrowing of their king and his replacement with a pro-Assyrian vassal.  The people of Ashdod, however, soon expelled the Assyrian appointee and Yamani reigned in his stead with more plans of rebellion.

³¹ The inscription further shares that, at the time, Chizkiyahu had annexed a Philistine city, perhaps Ekron, which had previously been a vassal of Assyria.  Despite these actions which suggest rebellion, Chizkiyahu apparently continued to pay tribute to Sargon.

³² See Yeshayahu 20, which speaks of the event: בִּשְׁנַת בֹּא תַרְתָּן אַשְׁדּוֹדָה בִּשְׁלֹחַ אֹתוֹ סַרְגוֹן מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ.  The chapter itself, however, speaks of the eventual downfall of Egypt at the hands of Assyria, and appears to constitute a warning to Yehuda not to trust in an alliance with Egypt, for it is doomed to fail.

³³ See H. Tadmor, "מלחמת סנחריב ביהודב: בחינת היסטוריוגראפיות והסטורית", Zion 50 (1985): 65-80, in the name of B. Mazar, who suggests that Lakhish was not simply a fortress city but more like a second capital. This could parallel Yizrael's status as a second capital to Shomron in the Northern Kingdom.  See also Mikhah 1:13-14 where Lakhish is second to Yerushalayim, and how Amaziah flees there in Melakhim II 14:19.

³⁴ The reliefs were discovered by A. Layard during excavation in what is known as Sancheriv's “Palace without Rival,” in Nineveh, in the mid-late 1840's.  They are currently housed in the British Museum.

³⁵ Two sets of prior excavations were undertaken, by the British  J. Starkley in the 1930's and by Israeli  Y. Aharoni in 1966 and 1968.

³⁶ The ramp was found in the south-western corner of the tel. The walls there form a tower from which the city's defenders could fight against the Assyrians, as depicted in the relief.

³⁷ For a discussion regarding the relationship between the relief and the archaeological excavations, see D. Ussishkin, "The ‘Lachish Reliefs’ and the City of Lachish," Israel Exploration Journal 30 (1980): 174-195.  See also D. Ussishkin, "כיבוש לכיש בידי סנחריב מלך אשור" in דרך ארץ : אבן חרס ואדם, ed. I. Zaharoni (Israel,1996).

³⁸ See his article on the website of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Excavations and Restoration work at Tel Lachish. Other objects found at the site include: several perforated stones, in two of which were the remains of burnt rope, many slingstones, and close to 1000 arrowheads. Ussishkin theorizes that the large stones were used by the defenders in attempts to damage the battering rams, while the other ammunition probably belonged to the Assyrians as it matches the relief's portrayal of Assyrian archers and slingers.

³⁹ See N. Na'aman and Y. Aharoni cited above. According to G. Galil (also cited above), in contrast, the verse might refer to Chizkiyahu's earlier conquests of the Philistines, before Sargon's invasion of Ashdod in 712. See the discussion regarding the Azekah inscription above.

⁴⁰ Many chapters in Yeshayahu reflect this same reality, as the prophet (like Ravshakeh) continuously warns the nation not to turn to Egypt for support.

⁴¹ This is the name mentioned in the account in Yeshayahu and in Assyrian sources. Melakhim reads instead, "בְּרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן."

⁴² Though the chapter is placed after the campaign of Sancheriv, given Yeshayahu's promise to Chizkiyahu that he will be saved from Assyria, it is likely that the events described occurred beforehand.

⁴³ This would explain Yeshayahu's anger. He did not oppose Chizkiyahu's showing off his treasures, but the making of an alliance rather than turning to Hashem. See Y. Elitzur, "ישעיהו מול חזקיהו ומראדך בלאדן", in ישראל והמקרא, (Ramat Gan, 2000): 201-209.

⁴⁴ Surprisingly, they even record similar figures, with Melakhim mentioning 30 talents of gold and 300 talents of silver and the annals recording 30 talents of gold and 800 of silver.

⁴⁵ See H. Tadmor, "מלחמת סנחריב ביהודב: בחינת היסטוריוגראפיות והסטורית", Zion 50 (1985): 65-80.

⁴⁶ Another examples of the standardized description is the fact that in all the annals the king is depicted as an epic hero, the enemy as an arrogant sinner and the conquest as a holy war.

⁴⁷ It is for this reason that the annals are arranged topically, by destroyed city, rather than chronologically.

⁴⁸ Cf. the promise of Yeshayahu that "כְּצִפֳּרִים עָפוֹת כֵּן יָגֵן י"י צְבָאוֹת עַל יְרוּשָׁלָ‍ִם."

⁴⁹ By the description of each of the other kingdoms conquered, Sancheriv suffices by saying, "and [I] imposed upon him tribute (due) to me."   When discussing Yehuda, on the other hand, there is an entire list of the items given in tribute, which extends for several lines in the annals, mentioning gold, silver, various gems, ivory chairs, and captives.  The Rassam cylinder, one of the earlier copies of Sancheriv's annals (dating to just 1 year after the campaign, 700 BCE) contains an even more extensive list of the tribute, adding clothing, chariots, shields, and various weapons.

⁵⁰ If the capital had in fact been destroyed, one would have thought that it, rather than Lakhish, would have been the subject of the relief.

⁵¹ See article cited above. 

⁵² In this he follows H. Tadmor (in his article cited above), who suggests that the main criteria in organizing the annals was the fourfold literary structure mentioned above.  This necessitated telling the story region by region and not chronologically.  He brings several examples where it seems clear that the annals are not chornological. Though the annals depict Sidqia, king of Ashkelon as being exiled before his cities are vanquished, it is much more likely that this only happened afterwards. Similarly, it is very probably that Chizkiyahu did not release Adi to be reinstated as king over Ekron until he, too, was forced to submit to Assyria, even though the annals suggest otherwise.

⁵³ G. Galil suggests that this reconsturction of the vents might have ramifications for understanding the end of the campaign.  Assyria's victory over Egypt was only partial, as perhaps suggested by the fact that the annals do not mention booty taken, or list numbers of enemy casualties.  Assyria, moreover, was likely weakened by the assault, even if victroious.  At the same time, the Egyptian retreat must have, nonetheless, demoralized members of the alliance, especially Chizkiyahu who now found himself without both Philistine and Egyptian allies.  This paved the way for both sides to rethink their positions, with Chizkiyahu agreeing to pay tribute and Assyria retreating without further fighting.  [As such, Galil suggests that the payment of tribute described in the beginning of the story in Melakhim really only happened at the end. The salvation is attributed to miraculous aid from Hashem, but had a mundane side as well.]

⁵⁴ See his article cited above.  See also K. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster, 1973): 383ff, (cited by G. Galil).

⁵⁵ According to him, then, the annals do record the events in their chronological order.