Evans 1 THE HEZEKIAH-SENNACHERIB NARRATIVE AS ...

Evans 1

THE HEZEKIAH-SENNACHERIB NARRATIVE AS POLYPHONIC TEXT

Paul Evans

The Problem of the unity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Narrative

Ever since Stade’s source critical assertions, scholars have viewed the Hezekiah-

Sennacherib narrative of 2 Kings 18-19 as the product of multiple sources and the work

of several redactors (usually referred to as the Stade-Childs Hypothesis).1 Historical

critics note the difference in portrayals of Hezekiah in what has become known as

Account A and Account B. As well they have noted the redundant parallel sections

within B itself, such as the second mission of the Assyrian messengers and the second

speech of the Rabshakeh. In consequence, the dominant critical hypothesis has been to

assume multiple authorship and redaction. It is assumed that Account A and Account B

are distinct sources with B comprised of two parallel sources (B1 and B2). However,

these approaches have for the most part been deficient in recognizing the unity of the

narrative as a whole. Alternatively, newer literary approaches read the text as if it was

the product of a single author.2 In some recent studies the different sections are seen as

related through highlighting similar vocabulary3 or by noting the ironic expectations

present in the text (which formerly were seen as evidence of it discrete sources).4 Despite

1 B. Stade, “Miscellen: Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15-21,” ZAW 6 (1886), 156-189. B.S. Childs largely

affirmed Stade’s source critical decisions, but nuanced them somewhat. The theory has come to be known

as the Stade-Childs hypothesis. Cf. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 3; London:

SCM Press, 1967). 2 Some scholars, though acknowledging the origins of the narrative in discrete sources, have focused on

‘final form’ readings which imply the possibility that the story can be understood as if the product of one

author. Whether it is a ‘Canonical approach’ (Childs) or a focus on the text positing an ‘implied author’. 3 E.g., van der Kooij have noted similar vocabulary which serves to provide “thematic coherence, ” though

he claims that the Stade-Childs hypothesis “cannot be denied.” C.f. Arie Van der Kooij, "The Story of

Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18-19): A Sample of Ancient Historiography," in Past, Present,

Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy,

Oudtestamentische Studiën (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 107-119. Here, 109, 107. 4 E.g., Ben Zvi notes that Hezekiah’s paying of tribute to Sennacherib “did not produce the expected

results” in Kings due to a desire to ‘demonize’ Sennacherib. Cf. Ehud Ben Zvi, "Malleability and Its

Evans 2

the rise of literary and final form readings of biblical texts, these source critical

conclusions are still prevalent among scholars.

The newer literary aficionados and the purely source critical approaches disagree

on how much divergence of style and outlook possibly could have been produced by a

single author. For the latter, ideological differences are evidence of discrete sources,

while for the former they are evidence of the genius of the author. A Bakhtinian

approach to the quandary of the unity of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative has

relevance for both approaches to this text as it acknowledges the multivalent voices in a

text (ala Source Criticism), but supposes they have been produced by a single author.

Some major concepts of Bakhtin which this study will take into account are 1. Prosaics;

2. Dialogue vs. Monologue; and 3. Unfinalizability.

1. Prosaics. Bakhtin had a preference for prose over poetics. Bakhtin viewed

poetry as essentially functioning as if it were a self-sufficient whole,5 failing to

acknowledge its relationship to other voices (and itself as only one of many voices).

Poetry only acknowledges itself, what it represents, and its own voice.6 Alternatively,

prose can contain multiple viewpoints and ideologies and acknowledge its place in the

heteroglot world. Bakhtin’s insights regarding the characteristics of both prose and

poetics will have ramifications in our interpretation of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib

narrative.

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. Lester L. Grabbe (London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 73-

105. Here, 85. 5 As Bakhtin writes, “The language of the poetic genre is a unitary and singular Ptolemaic world outside of

which nothing else exists and nothing else is needed.” Cf. M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four

Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (UTPSS, 1; Austin: University of

Texas Press, 1981), 286. This is likely the reason formalist critics typically studied poetry rather than

fiction. 6 Ibid., 285.

Evans 3

2. Dialogue (double-voicing) vs. Monologue. Bakhtin distinguished two types of

dialogism or double-voicing. In one sense, all discourse is double-voiced and Bakhtin

viewed all speech as characteristically ‘dialogic.’7 An utterance (oral or written) cannot

exist in isolation, but is at all times spoken to somebody, expecting an eventual riposte,

and thus can be understood to be in dialogue.8 This dialogism is invariably derived from

the broader language world and refers to what has already been spoken about, bringing

every dialogue into conversation with the previous speaking (that is, all speech is double-

voiced).9

A second sense of ‘dialogism’ is that which relates particularly to the novel. In

novelistic prose a character may speak and wish his utterance be heard as though spoken

with ‘quotation marks.’10

That is, the character is in purposeful dialogue with another

voice. This type of ‘double-voicing’ is referred to as ‘active double-voiced discourse.’

However, dialogism in the novel can also be ‘passive’ where the author sounds the

second voice within a character’s discourse and is essentially in control of the other’s

speech.11

Thus, there is double-voicing that characters are aware of, and double-voicing

of which only the author (and presumably, the reader) is conscious.

The concept of polyphony is closely related to that of dialogism. Polyphony is a

feature unique to prose where various competing voices engage in dialogue without

7 One of the most persistent features of Bakhtin’s ideas was his obsession with dialogue. He asserted that

the ‘utterance’ is the fundamental component of speech rather than the ‘sentence’ or the ‘word.’ Cf. Mikail

M. Bakhtin, "The Problem of Speech Genre," in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (Austin: University

of Texas Press, 1986), 60-102. Here, 67-75. 8 As Bakhtin writes, “[t]he word in living conversation is directly, blatantly, oriented toward a future

answer-word: it provokes an answer, anticipates it and structures itself in the answer’s direction.” Cf.

Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 280. Therefore, all speech is pointed toward what Bakhtin calls the

"conceptual horizon" of listener which comprises assorted social languages the listener uses. Dialogism

involves interaction between the languages of the speaker and that of the listener. 9 Ibid., 259-422. Here 279.

10 Irena R. Makaryk, ed., Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 537. 11

Ibid., 538.

Evans 4

authorial constraint.12

Bakhtin viewed the novel as the finest way to represent this

‘dialogic’ value of human discourse.13

Within novelistic prose, multiple voices are

allowed to be heard and interact in a way mirroring human experience. In a polyphonic

text the author allows such voices to sound without suppressing some and privileging

others.

Opposite of this ‘dialogue’ is ‘monologue.’ The latter conveys abstract

prepositions which can be replicated and stand independent of the utterer in regards to its

truth value and lends itself to systematization.14

Bakhtin argued that most literature is

monologic (even the novel where the author’s point of view unifies the work).15

Poetry

was viewed by Bakhtin as intrinsically monologic. However, prose can also be

monologic when the author privileges his own voice within the text above all others.

The historical-critical study of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative in 2 Kings 18-

19 has been dominated by such a monologic view of its authorship. Since the narrative

appears to lack monologic unity, source critics have divided the narrative into discrete

units which necessarily must have come from different authors (these studies then view

the narrative in terms of Bakhtin’s ideas of monologue).

3. Unfinalizability. Bakhtin argued against the idea that truth is monological and

can be systematized. Bakhtin viewed things in dialogue as ‘unfinalizable.’ Since

everything is in dialogue with an other, the world is open and nothing is final. Dialogic

truth is to be found in the junction of (rather than combination of) multiple voices which

are not systematized but each speaks its distinctive contribution. Dialogic truth lives in a

12

Ibid., 610. 13

As is well known, Bakhtin found Dostoevsky’s works most adequate in this regard. 14

As Bakhtin would put it, such truth is “no man’s thoughts.” Cf. Mikail M. Bakhtin, Problems of

Dostoevsky's Poetics, ed. Caryl Emerson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 93. 15

Such as in Tolstoy’s novels.

Evans 5

conversation rather than a singular statement.16

Such a conversation is forever open

(unfinalized). A text which conveys dialogic truth can be labeled ‘polyphonic’ due to its

inclusion of multiple voices in conversation. In such a text, there is no clear closure and

a variety of ideological positions are positioned together with no one voice (including the

author’s) dominating.

Conceiving of the possibility of a single author composing a polyphonic text has

implications for reading the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative of 2 Kings 18-19. Despite

the general consensus of historical-critical scholarship regarding the origins of the

Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative of 2 Kings 18-19, the process whereby the present

narrative in reality was produced is unknown. The Stade-Childs hypothesis is really

simply a heuristic model which suggests reading the narrative ‘as if’ A, B1 and B2

existed and were employed in the construction of the story. The present study would

rather employ a Bakhtinian model to explain the origins of the text viewing the Hezekiah-

Sennacherib narrative in 2 Kings 18-19 as the product of a polyphonic writer.17

Suppose that the writer of the narrative was fascinated by the different portrayals

of Assyria in the prophetic literature. On the one hand, Assyria was described as God’s

“rod of anger” (Isa 10:5) which was employed by the deity to chastise the chosen people.

On the other hand, Assyria was spoken about as blasphemous and meriting the wrath of

that same deity (e.g., Nahum 1:1-3:17). This writer was intrigued by the relation of these

divergent perspectives and their potential for conflict.

16

As Bakhtin has asserted, “unified truth… requires a plurality of consciousnesses.” Cf. Bakhtin,

Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 81. 17

The impetus for this suggestion stems from Newsom’s suggestion of such an author for the book of Job.

Cf. Carol Newsom, "The Book of Job as Polyphonic Text," JSOT 97 (2002): 87-108.

Evans 6

In order to engage these divergent viewpoints in conversation, the author

employed several traditional genres to create the dialogue. One was history-like

narrative, traditionally employed by a narrator to demonstrate how the God of Israel

defeated Israel’s enemies and to criticize the latter.18

Another genre was direct speech.

This genre was often employed within history-like narrative to express different

viewpoints which were to be contradicted or confirmed by the events of the narrative.19

A further genre employed was prophetic oracle which was, more often than not, utilized

to criticize Israel from within and provide alternative (often unpopular) viewpoints (often

in regard to the role of other nations in Israel's affairs).20

The author of the later

Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative was fascinated by the way these genres contrasted,

particularly in regards to the conceptualization of Assyria’s role in Israelite history.

The History-like Narrative

I have chosen not to refer to the narrative as ‘historical narrative’ in order to avoid

the debate surrounding the character of the biblical narratives polarized by so-called

minimalist and maximalist positions in the extremes.21

Yet the genre, whether true

‘fiction’ or ‘historiography’ is properly described as ‘history-like’ without coming down

18

E.g., Josh 6; 2 Sam 5:17. 19

E.g., the speech of the Pharaoh and the speech of Moses; one to be proved wrong, the other to be

confirmed as true. 20

As Jeremiah asserted, the prophets “from ancient times” always prophesied ‘bad news’ and not peace

(Jer 28:8). 21

Cf. notable ‘minimalists’ Philip R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel', JSOTSup; 148 (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Niels Peter Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society,

ed. David E. Orton (Biblical Seminar, 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); and Thomas L. Thompson, Early

History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (Studies in the History of the

Ancient near East, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Some recent ‘maximalist’ books include K. A. Kitchen, On the

Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003); and Iain W. Provan, Philips

V. Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,

2003).

Evans 7

on one side of the debate or the other.22

Within 2 Kings 18-19 the invasion of

Sennacherib is narrated as is the capitulation of Hezekiah, the visit of Assyrian

emissaries, the actions of Hezekiah in response and the defeat of the Assyrians

culminating in the death of their monarch.

Direct Speech

Subsumed within this history-like narrative are various events of direct speech

which can passably be labeled a different genre within the narrative. Within history-like

narrative direct speech is not strictly necessary as the author is free to narrate the events

devoid of quoting direct speech. The content of such communications can even be

conveyed through third person narration. This genre simply has voice answering voice

with little narration dividing (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:19-35). The result is a quasi-polyphonic

genre where divergent voices quarrel without narration of adjudication. Within the

Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, the speech of the Rabshakeh is striking for its length

when compared with other biblical narratives.23

It is also intriguing that nowhere within

the narrative does the narrator break in and evaluate the speech of the Rabshakeh. We

could envision the narrator commenting, “the people heard the blasphemous words” or

“the wicked Assyrian threatened God’s people.” But no such intrusion into the narrative

is attempted. This allows the various occasions of direct speech to be viewed together in

a dialogue. Each character in the narrative represents a voice that represents an

individual self, distinct from the others.

22

Even the term ‘historiography’ which does not necessarily imply the (even basic) historical reliability of

the narrative, can be controversial in regards to genre labelling. E.g., Isaac Kalimi, "Was the Chronicler a

Historian?" in The Chronicler as Historian, ed. Matt Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L.

McKenzie (JSOTSup; 238 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 73-91. 23

Discounting poetic speeches such as the ‘song of the sea’ which is spoken by Moses (Exodus 15).

Evans 8

Prophecy

Bakhtin saw novelistic language as dialogic and heteroglossic, and as such it

exists as a site of struggle to overcome (or at least to caricature) official centralized

language characterized by univocal and monologic utterances. In the Hezekiah-

Sennacherib narrative, the monologic utterance would be the extended prophecies of

Isaiah and the novelistic or heteroglossic work would be the history-like narrative. In

academic study of the Hebrew prophets, it is atypical to characterize a biblical prophet’s

oracles as “official” or “centralized”, but rather as revolutionary or anti-establishment.24

However, supposing that for the author of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative, the

prophecies of the 8th century prophets were, in his time, now seen as authoritative, the

monologic utterances of this authoritative prophet could now be seen as “official

centralized language.”25

If this was the case, the novelistic language he employed in the

Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative quarreled with the now centralized language of the

prophets. The former is dialogic while the latter is largely monologic.26

What also serves to further characterize prophetic oracles as monologic is that

they are largely poetry.27

As noted above, Bakhtin viewed poetry as essentially

monologic, functioning as if it were a self-sufficient whole.28

The author of the

Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative saw this limitation of prophecy and chose to employ

24

E.g., Cohen, Martin A., “The Prophets as Revolutionaries: A Sociopolitical Analysis,” BAR 5 (1979): 12-

19. Köbben, A. J. F., “Prophetic Movements as an Expression of Social Protest,” IAE 44 (1960): 117-64. 25

Even more so if the author is the exilic Dtr who held prophets in high esteem. 26

That is at least as read by the ancient reader who read it as the voice of the singular prophet and not a

compilation from various oracles from various prophets (which from a Bakhtinian perspective could be

viewed as in dialogue with each other as well). 27

As Freedman has argued, “poetry was the central medium of prophecy.” Cf. David Noel Freedman,

"Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: An Essay on Biblical Poetry," JBL 96 (1977): 5-26. Here pp. 22-23. 28

As Bakhtin writes, “The language of the poetic genre is a unitary and singular Ptolemaic world outside of

which nothing else exists and nothing else is needed.” Cf. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 286. This is

likely the reason formalist critics typically studied poetry rather than fiction.

Evans 9

heteroglossia in his novelistic narrative to address this shortcoming. He observed, as did

Bakhtin that, “the language of poetic [we could say prophetic] genres, when they

approach their stylistic limit, often become authoritarian, dogmatic and conservative.”29

Opposing the dogmatic nature of the prophetic word, the author of the Hezekiah-

Sennacherib narrative chose to insert the prophetic voice into his narrative as one of

several competing voices.

The Dialogue of Genres

The Rabshakeh’s character zone contains several double-voiced utterances.30

His

speech contains within it a perspective regarding the role of Sennacherib in Judah’s

existence. The Assyrian orator asserts that Judah’s own God had sent Sennacherib to

destroy Judah (2 Kgs 18:25). The Rabshakeh also expresses an alternative view of the

religious reforms of Hezekiah. Rather than view them as pious, the Assyrian views them

as blasphemous (2 Kgs 18:22). The Rabshakeh also slurs Hezekiah, claiming that the

Judean monarch is deceptive (2 Kgs 18:29-30).31

As noted above, there is no authoritative narration judging the veracity of the

Rabshakeh’s words. Instead Hezekiah’s own first person speech is juxtaposed to the

Assyrian’s as a counter voice. Hezekiah declares to his servants that the voice of the

Assyrian “mocks the living God” (2 Kings 19:4). The quarrel continues with another

29

Ibid., 287. The author’s critical but honoring attitude toward the prophetic writings may be a key to

understanding why narratives about writing prophets (e.g., Amos, Hosea etc.) are not to be found in his

work. 30

Character zones are “territories or fields of action for a character’s speech.” Cf. Makaryk, ed., 520.

Bakhtin notes that these character zones may be formed from “fragments of a character’s speech, from

various forms for hidden transmission of someone else’s word and from scattered words and sayings

belonging to someone else’s speech.” Cf. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 316. 31

Interestingly, the initial first person speech of Hezekiah appears double-voiced. In 2 Kgs 18:14,

Hezekiah’s confession by the hand of the messenger is that he has “sinned” ()+x). This admission is

double-voiced as it indicates his submission to Sennacherib and failure to be a faithful vassal, but is also

heard in regard to Hezezkiah’s moral character as well. Is Hezekiah’s submission fodder for the

Rabshakeh’s assertions regarding Hezekiah as deceptive? This would be ironic considering the narrator’s

evaluation of him that he did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh (2 Kgs 18:3).

Evans 10

(albeit much shorter) speech by the Assyrian emissary (2 Kgs 19:10-13). Most historical

critical commentators give a pejorative estimation of this second message and label it a

“doublet.”32

The threat is indeed similar in content to the earlier threats made in person

by the Rabshakeh. However, dialogically, this second speech utters novel ideas

regarding Yahweh’s role in the event. The first Assyrian threat asserted that their

invasion had the backing of the Judean God (2 Kgs 18:25) and warned that Hezekiah was

a deceiver (2 Kgs 18:29). Now the Assyrians warn their should-be-vassal not to trust in

this God as this deity is also deceptive (2 Kgs 19:10). The idea of Yahweh’s deceit has a

dialogic quality here, being found within a quarrel of ideas. As Bakhtin states, “the idea

lives… only under conditions of living contact with another and alien thought, a thought

embodied in someone else’s voice….”33

So the idea of Yahweh’s integrity or

deceitfulness is only embodied here through the conversation of competing assertions,

representing the polyphony of the text.34

The deceit of Yahweh is also suggested in the history-like narrative through the

humiliation of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:14-15, despite his aforesaid faithfulness to the deity

(2 Kgs 18:5-6). The deceit of Yahweh is clearly voiced through direct speech in the

words of the Assyrians. Interestingly, the latter voice is only uttered after another

possible narratival suggestion as to Yahweh’s dissimulation. Following a salvation

oracle through the prophet Isaiah which predicted Yahweh’s repulsion of Sennacherib (2

Kgs 19:7) through the hearing of a rumour and Yahweh’s (first person) involvement in

32

E.g., V. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 369. 33

Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 93. 34

It is possible that the author was intrigued by the different portrayals of the deity himself in prophetic

literature. At times, Yahweh was pictured as a refuge for his people, though “roaring” (Joel 3:16). At

others, the same deity “roared” against his own people (Amos 1:2) and could even be viewed as deceptive

(Jer 20:7).

Evans 11

the murder of the Assyrian monarch, these expectations are frustrated by a non-

fulfillment. A rumour is heard that the King of Cush was approaching with an army, but

this does not result in the Assyrian retreat. This turn of events in the history-like story,

could lead the reader to question the integrity of the deity who was not following through

with his promises.

This suggests that the speech of the Rabshakeh is ‘double-voiced.’ This voice

which accuses the Israelite God (contained in the Rabshakeh’s character zone) may also

be found expressing the voice of the people in Jerusalem who are under siege and not

experiencing the deliverance due the Zion of God’s throne. The Rabshakeh’s criticism of

Hezekiah’s reforms may also be double-voiced as representing the opinion of the people

at the popular level. These could arguably be viewed as examples of ‘active’ double-

voicing if the Rabshakeh was aware of such popular opinion.35

If this is so, it appears the

Rabshakeh’s double-voicing is in agreement with the second voice. Therefore, this

incident of active double-voicing is not parody, but appears to be of the stylized variety.

In stylization, an author attempts “to make use of someone else’s discourse in the

direction of its own particular aspirations.”36

Here the Rabshakeh’s speech sounds the

vox popli and “does not collide with the other’s thought, but rather follows after it in the

same direction.”37

This quarrel of genres continues in the extended prophetic oracle of Isaiah in 2

Kgs 19:20-34. This genre seems to be separate somewhat from the initial oracle of Isaiah

35

Which is precisely what Montgomery assumes in his commentary. He writes, “It is more important to

note that such matters of local religious import were well known to the wise Assyrian chancellery, which

had its ‘secret service.’ Cf. James A. Montgomery and Henry S. Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 488. 36

Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 193. 37

Ibid.

Evans 12

(which was typical of oracles found in history-like narratives in its brevity).38

This

extended oracle is representative of those found in prophetic books. In this oracle

Yahweh enters the dialogue in an extended way. Penetrating the discussion of Yahweh’s

role in the Assyrian invasion, the deity partially agrees with the Assyrian, and partially

agrees with the Judean monarch. As previously noted, the Rabshakeh (speaking for his

monarch) claimed that Yahweh had sent him to campaign against Judah (2 Kgs 18:25).

Yahweh agrees with this assertion, declaring that he, himself “ordained” the Assyrian

invasion and their destructive campaign (2 Kgs 19:25). However, in harmony with

Hezekiah’s voice (2 Kings 19:4, 16), Yahweh further announces that he has heard the

Assyrian’s blasphemy (2 Kgs 19:27-28).

The interaction of these voices within the text has all the markings of a dialogue.

Each “voice idea” is influenced by the previous and is augmented accordingly. Initially

the Rabshakeh declares his divine backing for his campaign. This “voice idea” is

unchallenged (at least explicitly) until Yahweh’s reply in the extended prophetic oracle of

2 Kgs 19:20-34. However, the warnings of the Assyrian that other gods have not

protected their lands (2 Kgs 18:33-35) were interpreted by Hezekiah as blasphemous.

Therefore, in Hezekiah's first response to the threats he labels the Assyrian's claims to be

Prx “reproach” (2 Kgs 19:4). His assertion is responded to by the prophet Isaiah who

agrees with Hezekiah's assertions (2 Kgs 19:6-7), though he does not comment on the

Rabshakeh’s claim of Yahwistic patronage for his Judean campaign. Isaiah responds to

Hezekiah's claim of “reproach” (Prx) but uses the word “revile” (Pdg) which is

analogous, but interestingly, not identical (2 Kgs 19:6).

38

E.g., 1 Kgs 20:13-14; 2 Kgs 3:17-19.

Evans 13

The Rabshakeh enters the conversation again with the second threatening

Assyrian speech. This time the claim is made that Yahweh will deceive Hezekiah, if he

should put his trust in this God (2 Kgs 19:10). In Hezekiah's response to this threat, he

once again describes it as bringing “reproach” (Prx) upon the living God (2 Kgs 19:16).

Yahweh’s response to this assertion picks up on the vocabulary of Hezekiah, designating

the Assyrian's speech as Prx “reproach” (2 Kgs 19:22). Yet the deity also persists with

the language of “revile” (Pdg) which was used in the first brief, prophetic oracle (2 Kgs

19:22). It is almost as if Yahweh was slowly convinced of the truth in Hezekiah's speech

in conversation. The initial words of the Rabshakeh, implying the impotence of Judah’s

God to defend them, merited the label of “reviling” (Pdg) the deity. However,

Hezekiah's claim that it was “reproach” (Prx) was not initially affirmed. As the

conversation continued and the Rabshakeh attributed deception to Yahweh’s character,

Hezekiah once again asserted that this was indeed “reproach” (Prx). Seemingly

convinced by the dialogue of both the Assyrian and the Judean monarch, Yahweh comes

to affirm Hezekiah's initial conclusion that this was “reproach” (Prx) and castigates

Sennacherib for his hubris. Yet, Yahweh’s voice is only one of many subsumed within

the narrative. Despite the author’s clear Yahwistic theology, there is no monologic

comment to confirm Yahweh’s utterances.39

Canonical Quarrel

39

It could be argued that a word from the deity is intrinsically monologic. However, earlier in the narrative

we had Yahweh predict an Assyrian retreat due to the rumour of an Egyptian force, yet this voice was not

confirmed in the text. It remained only one voice of many.

Evans 14

The quarrel between the voice ideas expressed by the Rabshakeh and those

expressed by the Yahweh and Hezekiah may be viewed as little more than

characterizations in the narrative. However, the significance of this dialogue is only truly

seen when viewed from a canonical perspective. Also embedded within the Rabshakeh’s

speech is a classic example of ‘passive’ double-voicing. Bakhtin distinguished between

‘active’ and ‘passive’ double-voiced words. The former implies the speaker is aware of

the second voice within his utterance and is purposefully entering into dialogue with it (as

we noted with Rabshakeh sounding the vox popli). In the latter, the author allows the

second voice to be heard through the speaker’s utterance, but the speaker is unaware of it.

In this narrative, the Rabshakeh’s words are condemned by pious characters and even the

deity; however, the reader catches the prophetic overtones of Rabshakeh’s utterance and

the inner-biblical quarrel they represent. As has been noted in various studies, the

arguments of the Rabshakeh have parallels in canonical prophetic literature.40

The author

of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative elevates the heteroglossia surrounding the

Rabshakeh’s words into “an image completely shot through with dialogized overtones.”41

In fact, the voice ideas articulated by the Assyrian in our text virtually ‘plagiarize’ the

ideas of the Major Prophets. These prophetic borrowings are the ‘scaffolding' on which

the Rabshakeh’s words are set.42

Who do you Trust?

40

Cf. Dominic Rudman, "Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII

17-35," VT 50 (2000): 100-110; Ehud Ben-Zvi, "Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?" JBL

109 (1990): 79-92; and Danna Nolan Fewell, "Sennacherib's Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18:13-

19:37," JSOT 34 (1986): 79-90. 41

Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 278-9. 42

As Phyllis Margaret Paryas explains, in Bakhtinian thought, “That component of the word which reveals

that it has already been cited or talked about in the past is termed ‘scaffolding.’” Cf. Makaryk, ed., 245.

Evans 15

One of the themes in the Rabshakeh’s speech is that of trust (x+b). The Assyrian

orator decries trusting in Egypt and belittles the latter’s potency by employing an

illustrative metaphor (2 Kgs 18:21). These disparaging comments regarding trust in

Egypt are double-voiced. As previously mentioned, within the Rabshakeh’s character

zone, the second voice in these utterances is that of the prophets. The Rabshakeh’s

perspective regarding trust in Egypt is shared by Isaiah (31:1) Jeremiah (2:37) and

Ezekiel (29:16). The Rabshakeh (unwittingly) is giving voice to prophetic assertions.

However, in this passive double-voiced discourse, it is informative to discern

whether the author of the narrative (who is in control of the second voice sounding within

the Rabshakeh’s speech) agrees or disagrees with the prophetic voice. In other words, are

the prophets here ‘stylized’ or ‘parodied’? Is the author here attempting to support the

prophetic assertions?

This characterization of Egypt as ineffective is juxtaposed by the narrator’s

description of the Egyptian advance with Tirhakah as at least partially effective,

distracting Sennacherib and his army from its focus on Hezekiah’s Jerusalem.43

This may

suggest that the author disagrees with these prophetic pronouncements concerning

Egypt’s utility. Thus, this could be an example of ‘parody’ since the author has set up an

opposition to the prophetic voice. However, the author’s apparent respect of the

prophetic voice, revealed in the accuracy of the ultimate fulfillment in the narrative,

43

In this narrative, the army of Sennacherib never returns to Jerusalem after this rumour. In fact, the

location of the Assyrian army which is attacked by the Angel of Yahweh, does not appear to be located at

Jerusalem at all. The last we hear of the locale of the Assyrian camp is Libnah (2 Kgs 19:8). As I.W.

Provan (Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: a Contribution to the Debate About the Composition of the

Deuteronomistic History [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1988]) insightfully points out “since the whole thrust of

the preceding narrative is that, contrary to Rabshakeh’s claim, Hezekiah and the people are relying on

Yahweh, not Egypt” and if the rumour of Egypt’s advance is what saves Jerusalem, then Egypt is to be

thanked, not Yahweh (124).

Evans 16

cautions us against over-accentuating this possibility. What is the final word regarding

Egypt and its role? There is no closure in the narrative or authoritative judgment laid

down.

A hitherto unexplored area of agreement between the Rabshakeh’s assertions and

those of the prophets is regarding trust in Yahweh. The Assyrian disparages the people’s

trust in Yahweh as the securer of their deliverance. At first glance, this is completely at

odds with prophetic perspectives.44

However, an interesting parallel is found in Jeremiah

when he cautions his people against trusting in the Temple and their position as God’s

Zion to guarantee their salvation from Babylon. Jeremiah warns against trusting in the

deceptive words “this is the temple of Yahweh, the temple of Yahweh, the temple of

Yahweh” (Jer 7:4). The temple was closely associated with Yahweh as his dwelling

place on Zion, the cosmic mountain.45

Just as Jeremiah disparages trust in the divine the

temple as guarantor of divine defense, so the Rabshakeh deprecates trust in Yahweh as

guarantor of divine defense. This analogous voice idea is significant as Hezekiah in a

prayer to his deity brands him as the “one enthroned above the cherubim,” probably

meaning enthroned on the Ark in the Jerusalem temple.46

The Rabshakeh also seems to

intimate a similar critique against trust in temple when he criticizes Hezekiah’s removal

of altars and high places in favor of the Jerusalem temple (2 Kgs 18:22).

This repudiation of trust in Yahweh is juxtaposed by the assertion of Yahweh that

he will save Jerusalem—not because of the trust of the people, but for “my own sake and

for the sake of my servant David.” This may imply that it is due to Hezekiah’s trust that

44

Cf. Isa 7:9, 30:15; Jer 17:7. 45

As Carol Meyers has asserted, “The temple building, on a mountain and a platform, replicates the

heavenly mountain of Yahweh.” Cf. Carol Meyers, “Temple, Jerusalem,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. 46

E.g., Montgomery interpreted this as indicating the Ark of the covenant with the golden cherubim. Cf.

Montgomery and Gehman, 403.

Evans 17

Yahweh defends Zion—since Hezekiah is in the place of David as the Judean king.

However, there is no official, explicit declaration of this. Alternatively, it may imply that

Yahweh will defend Jerusalem, irrespective of Hezekiah and his actions.47

Once again

we are left only with the chronotype where these voice ideas intersect.

Divine Patronage

The reason for the Assyrian’s warnings against trusting in Yahweh in this instance

also has a double-voiced ring of prophetic truth to it. In 2 Kings 18:25 the Assyrian

declares that Yahweh had sent him explicitly, claiming “Yahweh said to me, Go up

against this land, and destroy it.” This assertion expresses the voice idea of Isaiah 10

where Yahweh himself calls Assyria “the rod of my anger” (Isa 10:5) and the deity

substantiates the Rabshakeh’s words that Yahweh had sent Assyria “to take spoil and

seize plunder” (Isa 10:6). In fact, (as noted above) within the Hezekiah-Sennacherib

narrative itself, Yahweh affirms the veracity of the Assyrian’s claim that he indeed sent

him (2 Kgs 19:25). Here Yahweh’s words are also double-voiced. However, in this case

Yahweh’s words become a variety of active double-voicing. Yahweh is aware of the

Assyrian’s words and his claim to having Yahweh’s patronage for his campaign.

However, Yahweh’s double-voiced discourse is not ‘stylized.’ It seems clear that

Yahweh is parodying the Assyrian’s words in this instance. Yahweh is making use of

Rabshakeh’s discourse (his claim to divine sponsorship) but not “in the direction of

[Rabshakeh’s] own aspirations.”48

Yahweh parodies the conclusions which the Assyrian

draws from his realization of divine patronage. Yahwistic backing of the initial campaign

47

As Nelson points out Yahweh’s deliverance of Jerusalem is not connected to Hezekiah’s trust in Yahweh

since 2 Kgs 19:34 states the motivation to be “for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David”

making Hezekiah’s fidelity “immaterial at this point.” Cf. Richard D. Nelson, "The Anatomy of the Book

of Kings," JSOT 40 (1988): 41. 48

Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 193.

Evans 18

did not guarantee Assyrian autonomy and victory. Contrary to the Assyrian’s view of

their military campaign, Yahweh views the Assyrians as “raging” (zgr) against him (2

Kgs 19:27). Yet, Yahweh affirms his involvement in the Assyrian campaign—which

may also be an active, stylized double-voicing of Isaiah 10:5. In sum, the heteroglossia

of voice ideas are juxtaposed and allowed to quarrel here. Did Yahweh send the

Assyrians to defeat Judah, or is Sennacherib acting out of his own hubris? Both voice

ideas are expressed in this pericope but remain unresolved.

The Narrative Conclusion

The conclusion of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative records the death of the

Assyrian tyrant in Nineveh at the hands of his sons. However, this conclusion does not

actually answer the questions raised within this polyphonic work. The description of

Sennacherib’s demise contains nothing within it to suggest that Yahweh was involved

(and in some way fulfilled his promise to have Sennacherib killed in 2 Kgs 19:7). There

is even a gap between the denouement of the invasion narrative and the account of

Sennacherib’s death. It is said that he was “dwelling in Nineveh” (2 Kgs 19:6) implying

a continued existence after the previously described events. Moreover, the author of the

narrative does not help out the reader by providing a monologic comment pontificating

on why Sennacherib died.

In the end the several questions remain unresolved. Was Assyria the rod of

Yahweh’s punishment? Was the campaign into Judah the will of the deity? Is this

description of the death of the monarch tragic, unfortunate, accidental, matter-of-fact or

providential? If the Assyrian campaign was vigorously opposed by the deity, because

Sennacherib blasphemed, the monarch’s death could be an example of the fate of

Evans 19

blasphemers. However, there is no explicit comment from the author to that effect. This

is despite the willingness of the author to make such comments in other instances. For

example, in the same chapter the author explicitly stated the reason Samaria was

defeated, “because they did not obey the voice of Yahweh their God but transgressed his

covenant—all that Moses the servant of Yahweh had commanded; they neither listened

nor obeyed” (2 Kgs 18:12). Rather than describing in a monologic way why the Assyrian

monarch was killed, he instead describes a dialogue and an event.

Conclusion

Employing a Bakhtinian model which views the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative

as a polyphonic text has allowed a fresh analysis of the narrative. As noted at the start of

this study, a Bakhtinian model has implications for both Source Critical and newer

literary approaches to this text. Regarding the latter, it supports the rationale for reading

this text as the product of a single author. Regarding the former, the varied voices

subsumed within the text are helpfully acknowledged by this Bakhtinian analysis.49

Or

course, Source Criticism is not an end in itself but merely “the literary spadework for a

better understanding of the function and import of a document”50

and a Bakhtinian

approach is also helpful in this regard. The Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative leaves some

49

In fact, this study may also have implications for locating the author and his readership historically. Both

the character zone of the Rabshakeh and that of Yahweh contain the voice ideas of the writing prophets in

the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative. The result is a juxtaposition of genuinely prophetic voices that quarrel

together in the narrative. This dialogic discourse is obviously oriented toward a particular kind of listener

or audience implying a particular relationship between the author and his readers/listeners. Implicitly, both

the author and the listener must have had a common acquaintance with the prophetic literature. Therefore,

dating this pericope can be done in tandem with historical conclusions regarding the completion and

availability of the prophetic literature for not only the author but his wider readership. While this

observation cannot solve the dating of this composition, it may point to a later date for the composition of

this narrative than the Harvard School would suggest. That is, a Josianic author/compiler (E.g., Richard D.

Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: Department of

Biblical Studies, the University of Sheffield, 1981]) is probably too early to allow for the completion and

dissemination of prophetic literature alluded to within this narrative. 50

Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1979), 7.

Evans 20

questions unanswered and unfinalized. This may indicate the author’s ambivalent

disposition towards the canonical prophetic books, as well as both Hezekiah’s and

Yahweh’s character. The author creates a dialogue of voices reflected in the different

genres employed and the different perspectives of the various characters in the text, with

Yahweh himself as merely one of the many voices subsumed within the narrative.

Contrary to monologic readings of the text, there is no authoritative comment by the

author laying judgment in regards to Assyria’s role in Israelite history. The author allows

the truth to be seen in the junction of various voices rather than in a monologic

systematization. Realization of the unfinalizability of this text is almost certainly more

helpful in determining the function of this narrative, than an appeal to imaginary sources

and basing interpretation on these discrete parts of the text without relating them to the

whole.

In the end, the intersection of these diverse voices in this narrative serve to

present Yahweh as a free God. The unfinalizability of the dialogue really reflects the

unfinalizability of Israel’s God. Yahweh is free to employ Assyria to castigate his

people, while also opposing this foreign nation for their hubris. Even though Hezekiah

trusted Yahweh, the Assyrians were successful against most of Hezekiah’s Judah.

Though Hezekiah piously donned sackcloth and appealed to the prophet (2 Kgs 19:1-2),

deliverance was not guaranteed. The prophet himself predicted an immediate return (2

Kgs 19:7), which did not materialize (2 Kgs 19:9). Yahweh acted, only when he was

good and ready. He is not a god to be manipulated. Through the juxtaposition of these

utterances in a polyphonic work results in an emphasis on the freedom of Judah’s God

Evans 21

while still functioning to encourage trust and obedience in this same deity.51

There is no

monologic function to this polyphonic text.

Paul Evans Alliance University College-Nazarene University College

630, 833 – 4th

Avenue SW

Calgary, AB

Canada

51 Contra Hardmeier, the point of the narrative is not to show what happens when the king trusts Yahweh

(contra Zedekiah’s lack of trust). Cf. Hardmeier. As we have noted, Yahweh is free and cannot be

manipulated by pious actions of trust. It is the freedom and sovereignty of the deity which is emphasized

rather than the efficacy of the pious one’s trust.

Evans 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bakhtin, Mikail. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Caryl

Emerson and Michael Holquist University of Texas Press Slavic Series, No. 1, ed.

Michael Holquist. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1981.

________. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, ed. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

________. "The Problem of Speech Genre." In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.

Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.

Ben Zvi, Ehud. "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. Lester L. Grabbe, 73-105. London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press,

2003.

________. "Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?" Journal of Biblical

Literature 109 (1990): 79-92.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. Vol. 3 Studies in Biblical Theology.

London: SCM Press, 1967.

Davies, Philip R. In Search of 'Ancient Israel' Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

Supplement Series. ; 148. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Fewell, Danna Nolan. "Sennacherib's Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18:13-19:37."

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no. 34 (1986): 79-90.

Freedman, David Noel. "Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: An Essay on Biblical Poetry."

Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 5-26.

Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament Guides to Biblical

Scholarship. Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Kalimi, Isaac. "Was the Chronicler a Historian?" In The Chronicler as Historian, ed.

Matt Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie, 73-91.

Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B.

Eerdmans, 2003.

Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society Biblical Seminar

5, ed. David E. Orton. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990.

Makaryk, Irena R., ed. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches,

Scholars, Terms. Toronto: : University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Evans 23

Montgomery, James A., and Henry S. Gehman. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on the Book of Kings International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1951.

Newsom, Carol. "The Book of Job as Polyphonic Text." Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 97 (2002): 87-108.

Provan, Iain W., Philips V. Long, and Tremper Longman. A Biblical History of Israel.

Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Rudman, Dominic. "Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2

Kings Xviii 17-35." Vetus Testamentum 50, no. 1 (2000): 100-110.

Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and

Archaeological Sources Studies in the History of the Ancient near East 4. Leiden;

New York: Brill, 1994.

Van der Kooij, Arie. "The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18-19): A

Sample of Ancient Historiography." In Past, Present, Future: The

Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and H. F.

Van Rooy, 44, 107-119. Leiden: Brill, 2000.