Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Banyai Michael" <banyai AT t-online.de>]

Joe Baker wrote:


> I agree that one of Herodotos' sources for the story can be found in the
> demotic cycles but these were supplemented by what he learnt about the
> history, chronology and monuments of this period while he was staying at
> Memphis. What I am putting to you is that only the name Sanakheribos comes
> from a Hebrew source - all other information comes from Herodotos' Egyptian
> sources.

This is possible, but undemonstrable. It could be any semitic source, or 
list of
Assyrian kings names, with which Herodot may have corroborated his 
Egyptian
data. But it isn´t impossible, that other Egyptian demotic sources, which 
came
with the Sanakheribos story, offered a much better rendering of his name. 
Both
possibilities may be, but of no consequence for our original issue, the Ur
Kasdim debate.

> These Egyptian sources retain a memory of the failed Egyptian expedition of
> Assurahaiddina against Taharqa in early 673BC. The demotic cycle "Contest
> for the Breastplate of Inaros" names the antagonists as Aslsnty
> (Assurahaiddina) and Pedubast of Tanis (who finally submitted to the
> Assyrians during the successful 671BC expedition), But Herodotos does not
> use these names - his combatants are Sethos, a former high priest of Ptah
> and Sanakheribos. Now from where did he get the name Sanakheribos -
> certainly not from "wsHrnf" the father of Aslsnty. He would have got it
> from a source where the name was written something like "snHryb". I contend
> that such a source is to be found in the Book of Kings.

Of course, because the story doesn´t reflect any expedition against Taharqa 
673,
but one not mentioned against Sethos and Hezekija, 704 BC.

The name of Taharqa in the Bible is an anachronism due to an attempt to 
synchronise the biblical and the Assyrian chronologies during the Exodus.
This was becoming necessary since the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies 
have
got 18 years shorter than the Israelite, due to the rejection of 18 limu 
officials from the late reign of Tiglatpileser III. 

The Deuteronomist introduced a number of fictious Israelite-Judahite 
synchronisms without touuching the reign lengths for the later part of the 
8-th century to satisfy the couple of traditional Assyrian parallelisms, 
known to the bible.

These made the biblical chronology do look lower and brought Hiskijas reign 
unrealistically in touch with that of Taharka. There are still traces of 
this very elaborate Assyrian fake even in the limu lists.



> Herodotos has combined several Egyptian tales together to produce a story
> of a king who, facing an invasion from Assyria, has a dream in which a god
> promises him deliverance. On the borders of Egypt (Herodotos says at
> Pelusium but this is an anachronism) the enemy is devastated during the
> night by a miraculous event and immediately retreats, suffering heavy
> losses. These events sound very much like the account in 2 Kings
> 18:17-19:35. Now Banyai - before you jump in - I am not saying that they
> are the same story or depend on each other. They are two independent
> stories from different countries - but anyone who has heard both can not
> but be struck by their similarity.

No surprise.

> IMO Herodotos did hear both and interpreted the Hebrew version as a variant
> of the story he heard in Memphis. He was not interested in Hezekiah or
> Jerusalem - they were insignificant and outside the scope of his work - but
> he was interested in the outline of a miraculous nightly disaster that
> struck an Assyrian army near the borders of Egypt and their retreat without
> offering battle to an Egyptian army (okay the Assyrians did defeat the
> Egyptians in 701 but that is not mentioned in the Biblical account). This
> source supplied him with the name of the Assyrian king.

As I stated this is to be dated 704, I wrote a paper touching inter alia 
also
this problem. The events belong probably in following order of happening:

705- Sudden death of Sargon followed by open rebellion in Palestine 
anti-Assyrian alliance of Hiskija with Egypt

705-703- Assyrian withdrawal in Juda. Probably caused by news from Babylon
concerning the return of Merodach-Baladan flees Senacheribs army in havoc 
at
Pelusium and Jerusalem at the approach of the Egyptian army

703- Alliance between Merodach-Baladan II and Hiskija (2 Chr.XXXii, 31 und 
2
Kings XX, 12) and Phoenician Tyrus. The troops of Merodach-Baladan besiege
Assyrian ally Sidon. This would be just following a withdrawal of Assyrian
troops possible. 
"Den die Chaldäer waren das Volk - nicht Assur ist es gewesen-, die Sidon 
zum
Aufenthalt der Wüstentiere machen wollten. Sie stellten ihre 
Belagerungstürme
auf, zerstörten die Paläste und machten sie zu einem Trümmerhaufen." (Jes.
XXiii, 13). 
The Jesaia text has to be dated short before 700, because it alludes to 
the
flight 700 (as known from Assyrian sources) of Tyrian king Elulaios 
(following
the conquest of Sidon by the Babylonians king of both Sidon and Tyrus) to
Cyprust. "Steh auf, fahr zu den Kittäern- auch dort findest du keine 
Ruhe."
Jes.XXiii, 12. 

703- following the expulsion of Merodach-Baladan II from Babylon has 
Jerusalem
count with a new Assyrian siege, which indeed came 701: "Und er begann zu 
rufen:
Gefallen ist Babel, gefallen, und all seine Götterbilder hat man zu Boden
geschmettert. Du mein zerschlagenes, zerdroschenes Volk!" Jes.XXi, 9-10.

It is hardly possible to imagine Taharka acting however already 704. 
Kitchen himself is sceptic about the historicity of his figure in the 
biblic story. His introduction is explained by the pro-forma lowering of 
the reign of Hiskija (in consequence 714-680) by as much as 18 years so the 
late Assyrian-Israelite-Judahite synchronisms had a match, Taharka 
beginning by 689-.

> Thus the disaster story is probably post exilic and
> this suggests that the (above) third source was added to the Book of Kings
> sometime between 538BC and 449BC, with the later date being fixed by
> Herodotos (it was about this time that he travelled from Egypt to Tyre).

Some work on the story is late indeed, but to be dated during the 
Babylonian exile, as the Assyrian synchronisms were also worked out anew. 
There was neither earlier or later so much interest for the in the 
meanwhile asynchrone Assyrian parallelisms.

Best regards,


Banyai Michael