The narratives are (a) 2 Kings xviii. 13, 17-xix. 8; cf. Isa. xxxvi. 1-xxxvii. 8, and (b) xix. 9b-35; cp. Isa. xxxvii. 9-36 (2 Chron. xxxii. 9 sqq. is based on both), and Jerusalem's deliverance is attributed to a certain rumour (xix. 7), to the advance of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (v. 9), and to a remarkable pestilence (v. 35) which finds an echo in a famous story related, not without some confusion of essential facts, by Herodotus (ii. 141; cf. Josephus _Antiq._ x. i. 5).[7] It is difficult to decide whether xix. 9a belongs to the first or second of these narratives; and whether the "rumour" refers to the approach of Tirhakah, or rather to the serious troubles which had arisen in Babylonia. It is equally difficult to determine whether Tirhakah actually appeared on the scene in 701, and the precise application of the term Musri (Mizraim) is much debated. Unless the two narratives are duplicates of the same event, it may be urged that Sennacherib's attack upon Arabia (apparently about 689) involved an invasion of Judah, by which time Egypt was in a position to be of material assistance (cf. Isa. xxx. 1-5, xxxi. 1-3?). This theory of a second campaign (first suggested by Sir Henry Rawlinson) has been contested, although it is pointed out that Sennacherib at all events did not invade Egypt, and that 2 Kings xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25) can only refer to his successor. The allusion to the murder of Sennacherib (xix. 36 sq.)[8] points to the year 681, but it is uncertain to which of the above narratives it belongs. On the whole, the question must be left open, and with it both the problem of the extension of the name Musri and Mizraim outside Egypt in the Assyrian and Hebrew records of this period and the true historical background of a number of the Isaianic prophecies. It is quite possible that later events which belong to the time of the Egyptian supremacy and the wars of Esarhaddon have been confused with the history of Sennacherib's invasion.