Misconceptions and Issues Regarding the Understanding of Isaiah

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter Three The Problem of Chronology in II Kings 16 -20

Introduction

As can now be seen from chapter two, regardless of what the proposed interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is, there are a number of problems with each one. Yet while there are a host of exegetical objections to the views that either Immanuel was one of Isaiah‘s sons or that Immanuel referred to any child born in Judah at that time, the predominant objection to the view that Immanuel was a reference to Hezekiah is that the chronology put forth in II Kings seemingly does not allow for it. Scholars claim Hezekiah would have been between 6-11 years old at the time of Isaiah‘s Immanuel prophecy of 7:13-25 and therefore could not be the Immanuel child in Isaiah 7:14. And so, even though virtually every scholar agrees that there are royal Davidic connotations within Isaiah 7:14 and that in its final form there are definite thematic connections between chapters 7, 9, and 11, the view that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Hezekiah is widely rejected on the grounds that the chronology of II Kings simply does not allow for it.
Yet what often goes seemingly unnoticed is the fact that the chronology found in II Kings is extremely problematic. Christopher Seitz notes this when he says, ―…there appears to be confusion in the Books of Kings over the precise length of reign for Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz. Interpretation of Isaiah 7:1-9:7 fall squarely in this period and so does the problem of identifying the Immanuel child.‖¹⁵³ This is extremely important to note because it shows the reason scholars give as to why Immanuel could not be Hezekiah is, in and of itself, riddled with problems. We must seriously question scholars who acknowledge that virtually everything about Immanuel found in Isaiah 7-12 points to Hezekiah, yet then rejects it based on a highly problematic chronology found in II Kings.
Trying to analyze and reconstruct the historical events found within the Old Testament can be a tricky, and some would argue fruitless, endeavor. After all, it is the job of the biblical exegete to attempt to understand the point of view and meaning of a text as it is presented to us, not to try and reconstruct a different historical scenario than that of the biblical witness. Nevertheless, it is imperative that this thesis attempt to answer the ―chronological problem‖ that is time and time again thrown up by scholars to dispute the legitimacy of identifying Immanuel with Hezekiah. Given the fact that the only real objection to identifying Immanuel with Hezekiah is that the chronology put forth in II Kings 16-20 seemingly does not allow such an identification, and given the obvious fact that there are severe chronological difficulties within II Kings itself, this chapter will analyze these diachronic concerns and argue that it is historically possible that Hezekiah was not yet born at the time of Isaiah‘s prophecy, was born shortly after the prophecy, and therefore was very likely the prophesied Immanuel of 7:14. If it can be shown that such an identification is historically possible—that Isaiah very well could have uttered his prophecy of 7:13-25 shortly before Hezekiah was born—then legs will be cut out from underneath the major argument against the identification of Immanuel with Hezekiah. The diachronic argument and historical possibility, together with the synchronic argument and literary reading of Isaiah 7:14 within Proto-Isaiah, will further strengthen the view that in its original historical and literary contexts, Isaiah 7:14 was first and foremost a prophecy about the birth of Hezekiah.
In this chapter we will look at the chronological problems in II Kings surrounding the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah and argue that if these problems can be resolved, one is then able to reconstruct a revised chronology that allows for the possibility that Isaiah uttered his prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 before the birth of Hezekiah. The first thing that needs to be done, though, is to make sure that we have a good grasp of the relevant biblical texts that tell us about Ahaz and Hezekiah. The biblical texts that give us significant information about Ahaz are Isaiah 7, II Kings 16, and II Chronicles 28, with the main focus in Ahaz‘s reign being the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. The biblical texts that give us significant information about Hezekiah are Isaiah 36-39, II Kings 18-20, and II Chronicles 29-32. Although the main focus in Hezekiah‘s reign is clearly Sennacherib‘s invasion, there is also the mention of the fall of Samaria, Hezekiah‘s attempt to reach out to the northern tribes to come and join Judah for Passover, Hezekiah‘s sickness, and the visit from the envoys of Babylon. There are also a number of Assyrian texts that tells us a little about both kings. These texts will be alluded to in the process of our analysis, but a few remarks must be made concerning the issue of using these sources (as well as our biblical sources) as a basis for our knowledge of history.
As was mentioned in chapter one, we must remember that neither the Assyrian records, nor the relevant biblical texts themselves, are written as ―objective histories‖ in our modern sense of the term. For that matter, though, there really is no such thing as ―objective history.‖ All history writing, be it Israelite, Assyrian, French or American, is written from a certain point of view and for a certain purpose. As Provan, Long, and Longman state, ―There is no account of the past anywhere that is not ideological in nature, and therefore in principle to be trusted more than other accounts.‖¹⁵⁴ Because of this fact, it is ultimately foolish to assume that attaining ―objective history‖ is possible, for there is no such thing. What we have are ancient texts that are attempting to interpret and make sense of certain events and facts in history. The Assyrian texts are primarily royal annals that are, ―more concerned about the image of the king and his activity as a warrior than about merely recording the facts of his reign…‖¹⁵⁵ The biblical narratives, on the other hand, are stories about certain events in the history of Israel that attempt to prophetically explain who God is and how God‘s hand was at work throughout the history of Israel.
Given the fact that Isaiah, II Kings, and II Chronicles, all came into their final form either during or after the exile, it is obvious that the exilic/post-exilic lens through which these stories were told inevitably shaped their theological perspective on these very stories. The overwhelming question, ―Why did we end up in exile?‖ undoubtedly shaped their theological perspective on their history to the point that we can see that the final forms of these works act as an answer to that question. But to claim that an exilic/post-exilic historical narrative regarding past events in the history of Israel is by de facto unreliable is to overstate the case. As Provan, Long, and Longman have pointed out, mere chronological distance from a historical event does not automatically mean a less historically reliable text. In fact, ―No good reason at all exists to believe that those claiming to be eyewitnesses are not (like the later reporters of events) interpreters of those events, nor is there any reason to assume on principle that their testimony is going to be more or less trustworthy. There is, indeed, no reason to believe that earlier accounts are generally more reliable than later accounts.‖¹⁵⁶ In fact, often times it takes time to fully understand and appreciate the importance, implications, and magnitude of certain historical events. The passage of time more often than not brings a clearer perspective on the general messiness of history.

Overview of the Relevant Texts Regarding Ahaz and Hezekiah

Although there is general consensus on the overall picture of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, getting a firm grasp on the historical ―facts‖ of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis is quite a tricky business. Not only do we have Isaiah‘s version of this crisis, but we also have accounts of it in II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28—and they all differ in some way or another. It is generally understood that the reason for this is that each ―author‖ shaped his account in some way to reflect his understanding of God‘s purpose and to fit in with the overall message to in his book. It would be a futile endeavor to attempt to reconstruct the actual events of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, for all we have are interpretations of those events. We should rather attempt to understand and exegete Isaiah‘s account of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. Nevertheless, in order to understand Isaiah‘s account of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, it is extremely helpful to consider both II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 in order to get a general sense of how the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis was understood within the collective memory of the Hebrew Scriptures. Our aim, therefore, is not so much to attempt a historical reconstruction of the events of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, as it is to come to a general biblical understanding of that event by recognizing the basic points upon which Isaiah, II Kings, and II Chronicles all agree.
The general historical picture surrounding Isaiah 7:14 is fairly well-agreed upon: Isaiah uttered his prophecy about the Immanuel child at some point during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, at the time of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, when Judah was being threatened by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, presumably around 740-734 BCE, who were trying to oust Ahaz and set up ―the son of Tabeel‖ as king in Ahaz‘s place The biblical passages that tell us about the reign of King Ahaz are that of Isaiah 7-12, which combines a brief narrative of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis with an extended prophecy that lasts through chapter 12, and the two narrative sections of II Kings 16 and Chronicles 28. When one looks at these three passages, one is able to make some initial observations regarding not only the events surrounding the reign of King Ahaz, but also the events surrounding the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. On the surface, the overall picture of Ahaz in these two other accounts is fairly consistent with Isaiah. Ahaz is presented as a king whose faithlessness to YHWH opened the door to Assyrian oppression.
Although Isaiah does not elaborate on many details regarding the reign of Ahaz, both II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 do.¹⁵⁷ They state that he became king at twenty, reigned for sixteen years, and did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH. The particular sins of Ahaz mentioned in both II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 are: (a) making his sons pass through the fire, (b) sacrificing and making offerings on the high places and hills and under every green tree, (c) appealing to Tiglath-pileser of Assyria for help when threatened by Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel, as well as the Edomites, (d) taking silver and gold from both the house of YHWH and the house of the king, and giving it as tribute to Assyria, and (d) worshipping the gods of Damascus in some way.
Kings gives more detail concerning this last point by saying that when Ahaz went to meet Tiglath-pileser in Damascus after Tiglath-pileser had conquered Damascus and had killed Rezin, he was so impressed with the great altar in Damascus that he had ordered Uriah the high priest to construct a similar altar in the temple of YHWH, and to move the bronze altar of YHWH off to the side. II Chronicles contains some additional details as well. There is the mention of captives being taken by both Rezin and Pekah, and the surprisingly kind treatment that Israel showed to its Judean captives. We are told that Zichri, a great warrior of Ephraim (Israel) killed Ahaz‘s son Maaseiah, Azrikam the commander of the palace, and Elkanah, the one next in authority to Ahaz. We are also told that instead of strengthening Ahaz, Tiglath-pileser ended up oppressing him. Finally, we are told that Ahaz was not buried in the tombs of the kings of Israel.
Instead of giving us details surrounding the reign of Ahaz, Isaiah focuses on what apparently was for him the single most defining moment of the reign of Ahaz: the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. This is not to say that II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 do not condemn Ahaz for his actions during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, for they certainly do. The point is that in Isaiah, the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis is the focus, not Ahaz‘s other sins.¹⁵⁸ For Isaiah, Ahaz‘s faithless actions at that time provoked YHWH‘s judgment at the hands of Assyria; at the same time, though, in the midst of that prophetic judgment, Isaiah points toward a sign of hope: the birth of Immanuel, the one through whom YHWH would act to judge Assyria, and who would help establish YHWH‘s salvation for the surviving remnant of YHWH‘s judgment that was brought on by Ahaz.
In any case, we are told that Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel planned to attack Jerusalem, but were not successful.¹⁵⁹ Their intention was to get rid of Ahaz and to set up ―the son of Tabeel‖ as king in Jerusalem,¹⁶⁰ presumably to be a puppet ruler who would do their bidding. The most obvious difference between Isaiah 7 and II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 is the confrontation between Ahaz and Isaiah. This confrontation is clearly the sole focus in Isaiah 7. The specific sins of Ahaz mentioned in II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28 are set aside in Isaiah 7 so that one can focus on the root cause of all the sins of Ahaz: his failure to put his faith in YHWH. In the face of the threat from the Syro-Ephraimite alliance, the prophet Isaiah went to Ahaz with a message from YHWH that both enemy kingdoms would be shortly destroyed, and that Ahaz should trust YHWH‘s message, or else the royal house of David would not stand either. Yet Ahaz, true to his form, refused to trust YHWH. ¹⁶¹ According to Isaiah, it was precisely Ahaz‘s decision not to put his faith in YHWH during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis that opened the door to a far more powerful and oppressive overlord, the king of Assyria.¹⁶²
Without reconstructing every fact surrounding the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, we can be confident about a few historical points that all three accounts agree upon: (1) Ahaz was threatened by Pekah and Rezin; (2) Pekah and Rezin were unsuccessful; (3) Ahaz received help from Assyria, who crushed both Aram and Israel. In addition to these three points, we can also say that Ahaz is consistently portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as: (4) a completely godless king who displayed no faith in YHWH, and (5) the one responsible for bringing upon Judah the horrible oppression of Assyria.

Abstract
Key Terms
Chapter One: Misconceptions and Issues Regarding the Understanding of Isaiah 7:14
I. Introduction: Justin Martyr and Dialogues with Trypho
II. Two Fundamental Problems
III. An Overview of the Evolution of Modern Biblical Methodologies
IV. The Shortcomings of Historical-Critical Methods
V. Provan, Long, and Longman: The Historical Reliability of the Bible
VI. Provan, Long, and Longman: The Bible as Literature
VII. Michael Fishbane: Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel
VIII. The Bible: History, Literature, and Prophecy
IX. An Understanding of the Historical Reliability of Biblical Texts
X. The Main Arguments of this Thesis
XI. Looking Forward: The Chapters of this Thesis
Chapter Two: Isaiah 7:14 in its Immediate Context
I. Introduction
II. Past Scholarship of Isaiah 7:14
III. Textual Variants of Isaiah 7:14 in MT, DSS, and LXX
IV. Isaiah 7:14 within the Larger Context of Isaiah 7:13-25
V. Isaiah 7:13-25 within the Larger Context of Isaiah 7-12
VI. Final Comments
Chapter Three: The Problem of Chronology in II Kings 16-20
I. Introduction
II. Overview of the Relevant Texts Regarding Ahaz and Hezekiah
III. Chronological Problems in II Kings 16-20
IV. Note on the Lunar and Solar Calendars
V. Possible Answers to the Chronological Problems in II Kings 16-20
VI. Making Sense of the Chronology of II Kings
VII. Proposed Revisions to the Chronologies of Ahaz and Hezekiah
Chapter Four: Isaiah 36-39 vs. II Kings 18-20: Priority and Historical Reliability
I. Introduction
II. Isaiah 36-39 and its Parallels in II Kings 18-20 and II Chronicles 29-32
III. Overview of the Scholarship Regarding Isaiah 36-39 and II Kings 18-20
IV. The Shortcomings of the Prevailing Current Scholarship
V. R.E. Clements: Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem
VI. A Question of Priority: Isaiah 36-39 or II Kings 18-20
VII. The Literary Unity of Isaiah 36-39
VIII. The Occasion and Purpose of Isaiah 36-39
IX. Historical Reliability of the Biblical Accounts of Sennacherib‘s Invasion
X. A Proposed Understanding of Sennacherib‘s Invasion
XI. Final Thoughts on Isaiah 36-39 and the Occasion for Proto-Isaiah
Chapter Five: The Bookend Structure of Proto-Isaiah: Isaiah 7-12 and Isaiah 36-39
I. Introduction
II. The Structure of Proto-Isaiah
III. Intertextuality within the Bookend Structure of Proto-Isaiah
IV. Recurring Themes and Motifs throughout Proto-Isaiah
V. The Narrative Artistry of the Three Strands of Emphasis
VI. The Literary Parallels between Isaiah 7-12 and Isaiah 36-39
VII. Similar Parallels in II Kings 16-20
VIII. Final Thoughts on the Bookend Structure of Proto-Isaiah
Chapter Six: Conclusions: Coming to a True Understanding of Immanuel
I. Introduction
II. A Review of the Findings of this Thesis
III. The Significance of this Thesis to Old Testament Studies
IV. Further Implications this Thesis has for New Testament Studies
Appendixes
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT