Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:45:04.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

E. W. Todd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first volume of The History of Israel (Oesterley and Robinson), Dr T. H. Robinson points out that at the time of the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel, Judah remained loyal to Assyria, and he goes on to suggest1: ‘It is possible that some part of the more southerly hill country was handed over to Ahaz, for we know that the Assyrian monarchs did take this means of rewarding vassals who had remained faithful when those around them were in revolt.’ Some confirmation of this, as Dr Robinson points out, may be found in the fact that some twenty years later when Judah did rebel on the death of Sargon, Sennacherib claims to have captured forty-six fortified cities of Judah, for as the narrative of Sennacherib's Third Campaign from the Taylor Cylinder says: ‘But Hezekiah of Judah, who had not bowed himself under my yoke, forty-six of his fortified towns, fortresses, and small cities in their neighbourhood innumerable, with casting down of battering-rams and assault of siege-engines, with attack of infantry, of mines … I besieged, I captured.’ (See Burney's Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Appendix 5.) The biblical records refer to ‘all the fenced cities of Judah’ (cf. 2 Kings 18.13) and to ‘Sennacherib's being encamped against the fenced cities’ (see 2 Chron. 32.1).

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1956 , pp. 288 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 288 note 1 See p. 380.

page 289 note 1 Cf. Wellhausen, , Prolegomena to the History of Israel, pp. 480ff (English Translation 1885)Google Scholar. But the objection which Wellhausen alleges here against the authenticity of the reform in anything like the manner described in Kings, Kittel endeavours to answer in the reference given below.

page 289 note 2 Kittel, , History of the Hebrews, Vol. 2, pp. 356ff (Eng. Trans. 1896).Google Scholar

page 290 note 1 Again see the Narrative of Sennacherib's Third Campaign from the Taylor Cylinder—in Burney's Notes on Hebrew Text of Kings, Appendix 5.

page 290 note 2 In verse 4a we have a series of perfects with weak waw—usually reckoned to be a sign of later style—concluding with with the variant . The LXX has at this point , i.e. only the one verb. Is it therefore possible that to an existing account beginning ‘And he destroyed the brazen serpent’ (v. 4b) there has been added a later expansion describing an attack on the high places generally?

page 291 note 1 p. 471.

page 291 note 2 Israel amongst the Nations, p. 89.

page 291 note 3 2 Kings 16.10. On the other hand some scholars have suggested that the serpent cult, having come from Egypt, is a measure of their dependence upon Egypt—i.e. an attack upon it implies a renunciation of Egyptian help and a return to Assyrian allegiance. But the serpent cult does seem to have been widespread in Palestine (cf. the evidence from Beth-Shan; Alan Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-Shan) and whatever it is origin it is doubtful if their relations with Egypt are directly involved here.

page 291 note 4 Lods (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism) differs from this view and suggests that if Hezekiah's act is viewed as a political measure it must be dated at a time when the king was not being ruled by Assyria and was in complete opposition to Isaiah, i.e. between 705 and 701. Nevertheless it seems possible that before 705 Hezekiah's thoughts had turned to rebellion, or else why seek to improve Jerusalem's defences by constructing the Siloam water-tunnel?

page 292 note 1 But this last statement along with its whole setting in vv. 16–20 is usually held to be a later insertion.

page 293 note 1 See for example, Ottley's, R. L.Short History of the Hebrews (1904).Google Scholar

page 293 note 2 As for example by Baynes, N. H., Israel amongst the Nations (1927), see page 97.Google Scholar