The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 02 : $b Israel, India, Persia, Phoenicia, Minor Nations of Western Asia
History
The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 02 : $b Israel, India, Persia, Phoenicia, Minor Nations of Western Asia
World history
It is probable, however, that here, as elsewhere, the editors have
adjusted the narratives and prophecies to historical and geographical
ideas which were not those of the narrators. In reality, it was the
king of Aram (_i.e._, Cusham) and the king of Ishmael (_i.e._, some
other North Arabian principality) who sought the humiliation of
Judah. The object, as the experience of the past had shown, was not
unattainable, but since the time when the king of Mizrim humiliated
Rehoboam, the suzerain of all the smaller kings--the great “Arabian
king” (Asshur)--had become more jealous of the ambitious activity of
his lieges. Hence, as soon as Ahaz sent an importunate message to
the king wrongly called Tiglathpileser, deliverance came to him, and
ruin to Cusham through an Asshurite intervention. The prophet Isaiah,
however, took a different position. According to him, trust in the
true Yahveh and obedience to his righteous law (of which Isaiah and
those like him were the exponents) was the sure, the only sure, defence
against human foes, while for Ahaz to send for the Asshurite king was
to put his head into the mouth of a lion. But how could such trust and
obedience be expected of Judah? Ever since Solomon’s time this little
country had hankered after a worldly prosperity which was inconsistent,
as the most high-minded prophets believed, with the worship of the true
Yahveh. Consequently both Isaiah and Micah, like Amos and Hosea, saw
nothing for their people to expect but ruin.
In the next reign it appeared as if this prophecy were about to be
fulfilled. Two invasions took place--one of the Assyrians, the other of
the Asshurites of northern Arabia--which have been confounded by the
editors who brought the Books of Kings and of Isaiah into their present
form. The difficulties which have been found in reconciling the Hebrew
narratives with the inscription of Sennacherib are partly due to this
confusion. We may suppose that the Asshurite invasion, which ended in
the hurried departure of the invaders, came first; it is this which is
referred to in the prophetic utterances of Isaiah. Whether or no Isaiah
lived to see the second invasion (which took place in 701) is a problem
for critics. The prophet has at any rate given us a vivid picture of
the alarm of Judah and the neighbouring countries in the Asshurite
crisis, and we can venture to supplement this to some extent with facts
from the late narratives in 2 Kings xviii. 13; xix. 37 (Isaiah xxxvi.
1-xxxvii. 38), provided that a methodical criticism has first been
applied to the text.
INVASION OF SENNACHERIB
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account