http://jot.sagepub.com/Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old
http://jot.sagepub.com/content/33/3/335The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0309089209102500
2009 33: 335Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentPaul S. Evans
Sennacherib Narrative as Polyphonic Text*−−The Hezekiah
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentAdditional services and information for
http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Feb 12, 2009Version of Record >>
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
�������������� ���������������������
Vol 33.3 (2009): 335-358
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309089209102500
http://JSOT.sagepub.com
The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative
as Polyphonic Text*
PAUL S. EVANS
Ambrose University College, 150 Ambrose Circle SW Calgary, AB T3H 0L5, Canada
Abstract
2 Kings 18–19 is commonly viewed as an incoherent narrative composed of multiple
sources, necessitating a diachronic approach. However, this hypothesis is only a heuristic
model suggesting we read the pericope in this way. This article instead takes a Bakhtinian
approach, viewing 2 Kings 18–19 as a polyphonic composition which accounts for both
the disjunctions within the narrative and its unity. Viewed as a dialogue of genres (his-
tory-like narrative, direct speech and prophetic oracle) in implicit dialogue, this narrative
is ‘dialogic’ as different voices intersect in this pericope, revealing a plurality of view-
points. A Bakhtinian approach not only allows a fresh exegesis of the narrative but also
has implications regarding the composition of the narrative, allowing the Deuteronomist
more creativity than is often the case.
Keywords: 2 Kings 18–19, Bakhtin, dialogism, polyphony, Hezekiah, Sennacherib, the
Deuteronomist.
* An earlier version of this study was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
of Biblical Literature in Washington, DC, November 2006. I would like to thank Barbara
Green, Keith Bodner and other participants of the Bakhtin and the Biblical Imagination
section for their helpful comments.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
336 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
1. Introduction
In recent years scholarship has shown a growing interest in appropriating
the insights of Mikhail Bakhtin for use in biblical studies.1
The scholar
most committed to Bakhtinian reading strategies is unquestionably
Robert Polzin, who has applied Bakhtinian theory in three substantial
works on the Deuteronomistic History covering Deuteronomy through
Samuel.2
While we eagerly await a (presumably) fourth volume from
Polzin that would cover the book of Kings, application of Bakhtinian
theory to the narratives of this biblical book has been largely neglected
so far.3
This has been partly a trend in newer synchronic literary studies
as the earlier books of the Deuteronomistic History have seen more of
the focus than the book of Kings.4
This perhaps reflects the unconscious
recognition of large blocks of unified narrative that source-critical
studies have long drawn attention to (e.g. the Ark Narrative, the History
of David’s Rise, the Succession Narrative, etc.),5
which provide fertile
ground for synchronic studies (and perhaps in a backhanded way point to
1. For a helpful introduction to Bakhtin and a survey of how he has been used by
biblical scholars, see Barbara Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship: An
Introduction (ed. Danna Nolan Fewell; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).
2. Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deutero-
nomistic History. Part 1. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury Press,
1980); Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History.
Part 2. 1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989); David and the Deuteronomist: A
Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Part 3. 2 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1993).
3. With the exception of the insightful paper by Francisco O. Garcia-Treto, ‘The Fall
of the House: A Carnivalesque Reading of 2 Kings 9 and 10’, in Danna Nolan Fewell
(ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 153-71. Informed by Bakhtinian theory,
Christine Mitchell has examined Chronicles and compared Chronicles to Kings, but has
not paid any sustained attention to the latter. Cf. Christine Mitchell, ‘The Dialogism of
Chronicles’, in M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as
Author: Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup, 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999), pp. 311-26.
4. As Steven L. McKenzie notes, ‘the books of Kings have not been the proving
ground that Judges and Samuel have been [for synchronic literary approaches]’ (‘The
Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History’, in Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick
Graham [eds.], The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
[JSOTSup, 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], pp. 281-307 [296]).
5. L. Rost is the name most associated with isolating these blocks of material (before
him many saw J and E as parallel sources in Samuel). Cf. L. Rost, Die Überlieferung von
der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926).
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 337
the legitimacy of such source-critical delineations—though these syn-
chronic studies almost unanimously disavow such approaches). Noth
himself viewed the composition of the book of Kings as drawing on few
connected narratives concerning the individual kings of Israel and Judah.
He claimed the Deuteronomist (hereafter Dtr) needed to construct and
compose by himself the account of the monarchy from Solomon onwards
but here he could at least use the chronological system in ‘the “Books of
the Chronicles” to provide a solid framework’.6
Despite this attribution
of creativity to Dtr for the narratives of Kings, Noth largely relied on the
source-critical delineations of his predecessors7
(the novelty of his contri-
bution was in stressing the unity of the Deuteronomistic History as a
whole) and it has been these source-critical questions that have dominated
the study of the book to the present time. Where the book’s compositional
history is not as prominent a focus, reconstructing the history behind the
book’s narratives has otherwise dominated approaches to Kings.8
Most synchronic studies of biblical books have ignored issues of a
source-critical nature to focus instead on the final form of the text. Yet
they fail to offer any other explanation for the origins of the text.9
The
6. Cf. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1981), p. 77. At the same time, however, Noth makes reference to prophetic stories
Dtr drew on. For example, Noth asserts ‘Dtr. had access to the Isaiah cycle as a
composite whole made up of separate elements’ (p. 68).
7. Noth asserts that ‘the literary-critical foundation was laid long ago and has pro-
duced generally accepted conclusions’. He notes ‘the careful analysis of Deuteronomy–
Kings which literary critics have carried out…can be considered definitive. The analysis
has gone astray in one point only…it has tried to explain the structure of the written
history by means of the pre-Deuteronomistic “sources”, whereas the work was not put
together until Dtr.…adapted material which he found in separate stories from ancient
sources’ (The Deuteronomistic History, pp. 2, 76). Noth’s acceptance of these conclu-
sions can be seen throughout his work; see, for instance, p. 20 (Budde), p. 47 (Well-
hausen), pp. 54-57 (Rost).
8. E.g. V. Fritz’s commentary (1 & 2 Kings [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003]) on
Kings has been criticized for not dealing ‘sufficiently with issues concerning the com-
position of Kings’ but is clearly focused on the history reflected in the book with a focus
on archaeology, identifying toponyms and so on. Cf. Marc Zvi Brettler, Review of
V. Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, CBQ 66 (2004), p. 619.
9. For example, Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 13) does not elaborate on
the issue of ‘the historical process that led to the formation of the Deuteronomistic
History’ but leaves it as ‘simply an assertion’ of his study that source criticism is
inadequate for the task. There are, of course, some exceptions. Meir Sternberg, for
example, posits Hebrew monotheism as the historical explanation for the genesis of the
text, arguing that monotheism led the Hebrew authors ‘to build the cognitive antithesis
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
338 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
present study does not wish to ignore the issue of the composition of the
text; however, the right headedness of newer literary studies and their
focus on the art of biblical narratives seems obvious to this writer. In this
study, primary attention will be focused on how Bakhtin’s concepts can
allow the critic to view the narrative of 2 Kings 18–19 as a unity. By
positing polyphonic authorship as a heuristic device, the present study
will highlight the potential of such a model for exegesis. Furthermore,
the explanatory power of a Bakhtinian approach may have something to
say regarding the composition of the book as well.
2. The Problem of the Unity of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative
Ever since the source-critical assertions of Stade,10
scholars (including
Noth11
) 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).12
Historical critics
noted the difference in portrayals of Hezekiah and redundant parallel
sections (such as the second mission of the Assyrian messengers and
the second speech of the Rabshaqeh) in what have become known as
Account A (= 2 Kgs 18.13-16) and Account B (= 2 Kgs 18.17–19.37).13
between God and man into the structure of the narrative’ (The Poetics of Biblical Narra-
tive: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading [Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1985], p. 46). By monotheism (which he basically defines as omniscience and
omnipotence) Sternberg would explain anything problematic about the biblical narrative
which otherwise called for a genetic theory of compilation. Sternberg further asserts that
‘the Bible’s poetics appears to have sprung full-blown’ (p. 232). This dogmatic explana-
tion for the history of the biblical text seems outside the realm of historical explanation
and is a venture into theological speculation.
10. B. Stade, ‘Miscellen: Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15-21’, ZAW 6 (1886), pp. 156-89.
Brevard S. Childs largely affirmed Stade’s source-critical decisions, but nuanced them
somewhat. Cf. Childs’s Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 3; London: SCM Press,
1967).
11. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, p. 137 n. 63.
12. So Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the
Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSup, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1980), pp. 52-71; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1988), pp. 240-44; John Gray, 1 & 2 Kings (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1963), pp. 600-601; T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 246-49;
James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), p. 515.
13. Account A gives an account of Hezekiah’s capitulation to Sennacherib—
something we do not find in any other biblical account and which is not paralleled in
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 339
Consequently, 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 further comprised of two parallel
sources (B1
and B2
).14
Perceived contradictions within the account also
suggested this division. The first prophecy of Isaiah predicts that
Sennacherib will hear a rumour and then return to his own land (2 Kgs
19.7). This prophecy is not fulfilled in the narrative as it now stands,
since it is the destruction of his army (2 Kgs 19.35) and not a rumour
which causes Sennacherib to return. Therefore, B1
proceeds from 2 Kgs
18.17–19.9a (19.9a fulfills the prophecy of 19.7—when a rumour regard-
ing Egypt is heard), followed by 2 Kgs 19.36-37, which records that the
Assyrian king returns to Nineveh and ‘falls by the sword’.
There is widespread acknowledgment of the validity of these source-
critical delineations; however, these approaches have for the most part
been deficient in recognizing the unity of the narrative as a whole.15
In
some recent studies the coherence of the different sections has been
emphasized by highlighting similar vocabulary16
or by noting the ironic
expectations present in the text (which formerly were viewed as evidence
Isa. 36–37. In this account Hezekiah loots the temple to pay off Sennacherib, contrary to
the second account where he instead goes to the temple to pray.
14. Within the B account Stade discerned two discrete units, subsequently labelled B1
and B2
. Stade detected these units first on the basis of the three different oracles (2 Kgs
19.7, 28b, 33) within the account which all predict that the Assyrian monarch will return
to Assyria. What was problematic to Stade about these oracles was that neither of the
subsequent oracles made reference to the oracle(s) that preceded them (‘Miscellen’,
p. 174).
15. Bakhtin’s critique of traditional scholarship’s approach to analyzing the novel is
apropos here. He wrote, ‘[t]he traditional scholar bypasses the basic distinctive feature of
the novel as a genre; he [sic] substitutes for it another object of study, and instead of
novelistic style he [sic] actually analyzes something completely different’. Cf. Mikhail
M. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, in Michael Holquist (ed.), The Dialogic Imagina-
tion: Four Essays (Slavic Series, 1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), pp. 259-
422 (263). Similarly, the historical-critical scholar has broken up the narrative into its
putative, discrete elements and focused study on these separate sections rather than the
narrative as a whole—and in so doing misses out on the genre of the text.
16. For example, Arie van der Kooij (‘The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib
[2 Kings 18–19]: A Sample of Ancient Historiography’, in Johannes C. de Moor and
H.F. Van Rooy [eds.], Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the
Prophets [OtSt, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000], pp. 107-19 [109, 107]) has noted similar
vocabulary which serves to provide ‘thematic coherence’, though he claims that the
Stade–Childs hypothesis ‘cannot be denied’.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
340 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
of discrete sources).17
Despite the use of leitwörter and narratival read-
ings of this text which allow one to read 2 Kings 18–19 as a unity, the
Stade–Childs hypothesis is still prevalent among scholars and the narra-
tive is usually analyzed according to these source-critical conclusions.18
By contrast, new literary critics often reject source-critical analysis
and instead treat texts as if they were produced by one author.19
Some
even suggest that the text actually is the product of one author.20
Thus,
newer literary aficionados and the older source-critical approaches dis-
agree 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, but supposes they have been produced by a single author.
17. For example, Ehud Ben Zvi (‘Malleability and its Limits: Sennacherib’s Cam-
paign Against Judah as a Case-Study’, in L.L. Grabbe [ed.], ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The
Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE [JSOTSup, 363; ESHM, 4; London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003], pp. 73-105 [85]) notes that Hezekiah’s paying of tribute to
Sennacherib ‘did not produce the expected results’ in Kings due to a desire to ‘demonize’
Sennacherib.
18. In fact, some commentaries deal with the putative Account A and Account B
sections in separate chapters of the commentary. See, e.g., Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, pp. 362,
365; Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), pp. 125, 128.
19. As Duane Frederick Watson and Alan J. Hauser (Rhetorical Criticism of the
Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method [BibInt, 4;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994], p. 9) observe, ‘Rhetorical critics normally prefer to leave the
task of recovering the history and life of early Israel to others’. For example, David A.
Robertson (The Old Testament and the Literary Critic [Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977], p. 4) explicitly distances the ramifications of such study on the history of the
biblical text, stressing that a literary approach is arbitrary and a decision to apply it to the
Hebrew Bible is only made ‘because we want to’. This is in keeping with its roots in new
criticism which ‘sought to exclude speculation about [a text’s] origins and effects…
[including] the historical context in which the text was produced. There was in fact a
strong anti-historical bias in the New Criticism…’ (Patricia Waugh [ed.], Literary Theory
and Criticism: An Oxford Guide [New York: Oxford University Press, 2006], p. 172).
20. Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist) posits the ‘Deuteronomist’ as his implied
author, but also consistently attacks source-critical positions on the texts he examines and
seems to believe that the Deuteronomistic History was essentially the product of one
author.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 341
3. Key Bakhtinian Concepts
It is true that Bakhtin developed his theories based on the novels of
Dostoevsky, which could call into question the use of such theories in
relation to biblical narratives.21
However, it appears that Bakhtin antici-
pated that his ideas had a broader application than this.22
In his later work
Bakhtin viewed all novels as containing dialogism23
and even went
further to include ‘texts’ in general.24
In fact, it is hard not to think of the
authorship of the biblical books when reading his discussion regarding
authorship. He writes:
The forms of actual authorship can be very diverse. A given work can be the
product of a collective effort [or] can be created by the successive efforts of a
series of generations, etc.—in any case we hear in it a unified creative will…25
According to Bakhtin, then, regardless of whether a text is the product of
one author or the result of the work of multiple redactors, it can be exam-
ined as a unified work. Furthermore, since Bakhtin largely finds such
dialogical authorship in works actually written by one author, the possi-
bility that other such works are the result of unitary authorship can be
considered. In order to undertake a Bakhtinian reading of the Hezekiah–
Sennacherib narrative, the present study will take into account three of
Bakhtin’s major concepts: (1) prosaics; (2) dialogue vs. monologue; and
(3) unfinalizability.
3.1. Prosaics
As is well known, Bakhtin had a preference for prose over poetics and
largely concentrated on novelistic prose. Bakhtin viewed poetry as
21. As Green (Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, p. 27) has cautioned, ‘[i]t is
obvious that the Deuteronomist is not Dostoevsky’.
22. As Mitchell has argued, ‘Bakhtin anticipated that his theories about dialogism
could have wider applications beyond the novels of this one particular author’ (‘The
Dialogism of Chronicles’, p. 313).
23. E.g. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’.
24. Cf. Mikhail M. Bakhtin, ‘The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and
the Human Sciences: An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis’, in Michael Holquist and
Caryl Emerson (eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1992), pp. 103-31 (121). Mitchell (‘The Dialogism of Chronicles’, p. 314)
suggests this means his theories ‘could be applied to almost any literary text’.
25. Mikhail M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (ed. Caryl Emerson;
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), pp. 3-272 (153).
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
342 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
essentially functioning as if it were a self-sufficient whole,26
and 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.27
Alternatively, prose can contain multiple viewpoints and
ideologies and acknowledge its place in the heteroglot world. As we will
see, the Bakhtinian view of the characteristics of both prose and poetics
will have important ramifications in our interpretation of the Hezekiah–
Sennacherib narrative.
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’.28
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.29
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).30
A second sense of ‘dialogism’ is that which relates particularly to the
novel. In novelistic prose a character may speak and wish his utterance
26. As Bakhtin (‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 286) 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’. This is likely the reason formalist critics typically studied poetry
rather than fiction.
27. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 285.
28. 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’. See Mikhail M. Bakhtin, ‘The Problem of Speech
Genres’, in Holquist and Emerson (eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, pp. 60-
102 (67-75). Hugh S. Pyper (David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12.1-15 and the Poetics of
Fatherhood [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996], p. 63) has asserted that the unrepeatability of the
utterance is what most characterizes it.
29. As Bakhtin (‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 280) 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’. 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
language of the speaker and that of the listener.
30. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 279.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 343
be heard as though spoken with ‘quotation marks’.31
That is, the char-
acter is in purposeful dialogue with another voice. This type of ‘double-
voicing’ is referred to as ‘active double-voiced discourse’.32
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.33
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 authorial constraint.34
Bakhtin viewed the
novel as the finest way to represent this ‘dialogic’ value of human dis-
course.35
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.36
Bakhtin
argued that most literature is monologic (even the novel where the
author’s point of view unifies the work).37
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 (thus viewing the narrative in terms of
Bakhtin’s ideas of monologue).
31. Irene Rima Makaryk, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory:
Approaches, Scholars, Terms (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), p. 537.
32. Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, p. 51.
33. Makaryk, Encyclopedia, p. 538. Green notes that ‘[r]eported speech may be
doubly-dialogized but passive—some overt and tending toward the more covert’ (Mikhail
Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, p. 51 [emphasis original]).
34. Makaryk, Encyclopedia, p. 610.
35. As is well known, Bakhtin found Dostoevsky’s works most adequate in this
regard.
36. As Bakhtin (Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 93) puts it, such truth is ‘no man’s thoughts’.
37. Such as in Tolstoy’s novels.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
344 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
3.3. 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 com-
bination of) multiple voices which are not systematized but each allowed
to speak its distinctive contribution. Dialogic truth lives in a conversation
rather than a singular statement.38
Such a conversation is forever open
(unfinalized). A text which conveys dialogic truth can be labelled ‘poly-
phonic’ 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) domi-
nating.
4. Polyphonic Authorship
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 schol-
arship regarding the origins of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative of
2 Kings 18–19, the process whereby the present text in reality was
produced is unknown. The Stade–Childs hypothesis is 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. Rather than assume
such a compositional history for 2 Kings 18–19, the present study will
employ a Bakhtinian model and consider the possibility that the Hezek-
iah–Sennacherib narrative in 2 Kings 18–19 is the product of a poly-
phonic writer.
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. Nah. 1.1-3.17). This writer was intrigued by the relation of
these divergent perspectives and their potential for conflict.
38. As Bakhtin has asserted, ‘unified truth… requires a plurality of consciousnesses’
(Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 81).
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 345
In order to engage these divergent viewpoints in conversation, the
author employed several traditional genres to create the dialogue.39
One was history-like narrative, traditionally employed to demonstrate
how the God of Israel defeated Israel’s enemies and to criticize the
latter.40
Another genre the author of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative
employed 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.41
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).42
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.
4.1. 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.43
Yet the genre, whether true ‘fiction’ or ‘historiography’, is
properly described as ‘history-like’ without coming down on one side
of the debate or the other.44
Within 2 Kings 18–19 the invasion of
39. As Bakhtin (‘The Problem of Speech Genres’, pp. 63, 66) asserts, there is an
‘organic, inseparable link between style and genre…[w]here there is style there is genre’.
40. E.g. Josh. 6; 2 Sam. 5.17-25.
41. For example, the speech of the Pharaoh and the speech of Moses; one to be
proved wrong, the other to be confirmed as true.
42. As Jeremiah asserted, the prophets ‘from ancient times’ always prophesied ‘bad
news’ and not peace (Jer. 28.8).
43. Cf. the work of the 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: Eerdmans, 2003); and
Iain W. Provan, Philips V. Long, and Tremper Longman, III, A Biblical History of Israel
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003).
44. 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.
See, e.g., Isaac Kalimi, ‘Was the Chronicler a Historian?’, in M. Patrick Graham,
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
346 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
Sennacherib is described, narrating 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.
4.2. Direct Speech
Subsumed within this history-like narrative45
are various events of direct
speech which can passably be labelled a different genre within the narra-
tive. 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 Rabshaqeh
is striking for its length when compared with other biblical narratives.46
It
is also intriguing that nowhere within the narrative does the narrator
break in and evaluate the speech of the Rabshaqeh.47
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.
4.3. 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
Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian
(JSOTSup, 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 73-91.
45. Bakhtin (‘The Problem of Speech Genres’, pp. 61-62) believed that speech genres
are diverse, but complex speech genres, such as the novel [and this writer would add,
biblical history-like narratives], absorb other more primary speech genres.
46. There are of course poetic speeches which rival its length; for example, Moses’
‘Song of the Sea’ (Exod. 15) and Deborah’s Song (Judg. 5).
47. As Peter Machinist (‘The Rab Saqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in
the Face of the Assyrian “Other” ’, Hebrew Studies 41 [2000], pp. 151-68 [159]) has
observed, ‘one is sorely pressed to think of a text that allows such an open and extensive
attack on an author’s own fundamental institutions and ideology’.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 347
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.48
However, supposing that for the author of the
Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative the prophecies of the eighth-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’.49
If this was the case, the novelistic language he
employed in the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative quarrelled with the
now centralized language of the prophets. The former is dialogic while
the latter is largely monologic.50
What also serves to further characterize prophetic oracles as
monologic is that they are largely poetry.51
As noted above, Bakhtin
viewed poetry as essentially monologic, functioning as if it were a self-
sufficient whole.52
The author of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative
saw this limitation of prophecy and chose to employ 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’.53
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 com-
peting voices.
48. E.g. Martin A. Cohen, ‘The Prophets as Revolutionaries: A Sociopolitical
Analysis’, BARev 5 (1979), pp. 12-19; A.J.F. Köbben, ‘Prophetic Movements as an
Expression of Social Protest’, International Archives of Ethnography 44 (1960), pp.
117-64.
49. Even more so if the author was Dtr, who clearly held prophets in high esteem.
50. That is at least as read by the ancient reader who read it as the voice of the singu-
lar 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).
51. As David Noel Freedman (‘Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: An Essay on Biblical
Poetry’, JBL 96 [1977], pp. 5-26 [22-23]) has argued, ‘poetry was the central medium of
prophecy’.
52. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 286.
53. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 287. The author’s critical but honouring
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.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
348 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
5. The Dialogue of Genres
The Rabshaqeh’s character zone contains several double-voiced utter-
ances.54
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 Rabshaqeh also expresses an alternative view of the religious
reforms of Hezekiah. Rather than view them as pious, the Assyrian views
them as blasphemous (18.22). The Rabshaqeh also slurs Hezekiah,
claiming that the Judean monarch is deceptive (18.29-30).55
As noted above, there is no authoritative narration judging the veracity
of the Rabshaqeh’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 Kgs
19.4). The quarrel continues with another (albeit much shorter) speech by
the Assyrian emissary (19.10-13). Most historical-critical commentators
give a pejorative estimation of this second message and label it a
‘doublet’.56
The threat is indeed similar in content to the earlier threats
made in person by the Rabshaqeh. 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 (18.25) and warned that Hezekiah was a deceiver (18.29). Now
the Assyrians warn their should-be-vassal not to trust in this God as
this deity himself is also deceptive (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
54. Character zones are ‘territories or fields of action for a character’s speech’. Cf.
Makaryk, Encyclopedia, p. 520. Bakhtin (‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 316) 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’.
55. 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 Hezekiah’s moral character as
well. Is Hezekiah’s submission fodder for the Rabshaqeh’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).
56. E.g. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, p. 369; John Gray, 1 & 2 Kings (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1970), p. 666; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 243; Childs, Assyrian
Crisis, pp. 96-97.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 349
with another and alien thought, a thought embodied in someone else’s
voice…’57
So the idea of Yahweh’s integrity or deceitfulness is only
embodied here through the conversation of competing assertions, repre-
senting the polyphony of the text.58
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 (18.5-6). The deceit of Yahweh is
clearly voiced through direct speech in the words of the Assyrians. Inter-
estingly, 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 (19.7) through the hearing of a rumour and Yahweh’s (first
person) involvement in the murder of the Assyrian monarch, these
expectations are frustrated by a non-fulfillment. A rumour is heard that
the King of Cush is approaching with an army (19.9), 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 Rabshaqeh is ‘double-voiced’.
This voice (contained in the Rabshaqeh’s character zone), which accuses
the Israelite God, may also be found expressing the voice of the people
in Jerusalem who are under duress and not experiencing the deliverance
due the Zion of God’s throne.59
The Rabshaqeh’s criticism of Hezek-
iah’s reforms may also be double-voiced, representing the opinion of
the people at the popular level.60
These could arguably be viewed as
57. Bakhtin, Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 93.
58. 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).
59. As Peter Machinist has suggested, ‘in the course of Sennacherib’s invasion and
siege, there clearly must have been Judaeans who had doubted or came to doubt the
efficacy and correctness of the Judaean theology and, more particularly, Hezekiah’s
actions, like the removal of high places, designed to shape and promote that theology’
(‘The Rab Saqeh’, p. 163). Hans Wildberger (Jesaja 28–39 [BKAT, 10/3; Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982], p. 1387) has suggested that this passage was a later
addition written by an opponent to the Josianic cultic reform.
60. Or perhaps the opinions of ‘the [Israelite] prophets who did not approve of the
cultic reform [of Hezekiah]’ as Moshe Weinfeld (‘Cult Centralization in Israel in the
Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy’, JNES 23 [1964], pp. 202-12 [209]) argued, sug-
gesting that ‘the remarks of Rab-shakeh contain their veiled protests against it’.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
350 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
examples of ‘active’ double-voicing if the Rabshaqeh was aware of such
popular opinion.61
If this is so, it appears the Rabshaqeh’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’.62
Here the Rabshaqeh’s
speech sounds the vox populi and ‘does not collide with the other’s
thought, but rather follows after it in the same direction’.63
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 (which was typical of oracles found in
history-like narratives in its brevity).64
This extended oracle is repre-
sentative of those found in prophetic books and allows Yahweh to enter
the dialogue in an extended way.65
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 previ-
ously noted, the Rabshaqeh (speaking for his monarch) claimed that
Yahweh had sent him to campaign against Judah (18.25). Yahweh agrees
with this assertion, declaring that he, himself, ‘ordained’ the Assyrian
invasion and their destructive campaign (19.25). However, in harmony
with Hezekiah’s voice (19.4, 16), Yahweh further announces that he has
heard the Assyrian’s blasphemy (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 one and is aug-
mented accordingly. Initially the Rabshaqeh declares his divine backing
for his campaign (2 Kgs 18.25). This ‘voice idea’ is unchallenged (at
least explicitly) until Yahweh’s reply in the extended prophetic oracle of
61. This 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”’ (Book of Kings, p. 488). See
also the dissertation by Peter Dubovsky (‘A Study of Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services
and Their Significance for 2 Kings 18–19’ [unpublished ThD dissertation, Harvard
University, 2005]) which argues similarly.
62. Bakhtin, Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 193.
63. Bakhtin, Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 193.
64. E.g. 1 Kgs 20.13-14; 2 Kgs 3.17-19.
65. Of course, though representative of the prophetic books, as Christine Mitchell has
pointed out in an unpublished paper (‘Chronicles, Ben Sira, and Inserted Genres’, unpub-
lished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Wash-
ington, DC, 20 November 2006), ‘the placement of a work of one literary genre into the
broader work at hand gives new meaning to both the inserted genre and the broader work’.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 351
19.20-34. However, the warnings of the Assyrian that other gods have
not protected their lands (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 ‘reproach’ (Prx, 19.4). His assertion
is responded to by the prophet Isaiah who agrees with Hezekiah’s asser-
tions (19.6-7), though he does not comment on the Rabshaqeh’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 (19.6).
The Rabshaqeh enters the conversation again with the second threat-
ening 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 (19.16). Yahweh’s response to this
assertion picks up on the vocabulary of Hezekiah, designating the
Assyrian’s speech as ‘reproach’ (Prx, 19.22). Yet the deity also persists
with the language of ‘revile’ (Pdg) which was used in the first brief
prophetic oracle (19.22). It is as if Yahweh was slowly persuaded of the
truth in Hezekiah’s speech in conversation. The initial words of the
Rabshaqeh, which implied 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 conversa-
tion continued and the Rabshaqeh 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 monarchs, 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.66
6. A Canonical Quarrel
The quarrel between the voice ideas expressed by the Rabshaqeh and
those expressed by Yahweh and Hezekiah may be viewed as little more
66. 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.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
352 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
than characterizations within the narrative. However, the significance of
this dialogue is only truly seen when viewed from a canonical perspec-
tive. Also embedded within the Rabshaqeh’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 Rabshaqeh sounding the vox populi).
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
Rabshaqeh’s words are condemned by pious characters and even the
deity; however, the reader67
catches the prophetic overtones of the Rab-
shaqeh’s utterance and the inner-biblical quarrel they represent. As has
been noted in various studies, the arguments of the Rabshaqeh have
parallels in canonical prophetic literature.68
The author of the Hezekiah–
Sennacherib narrative elevates the heteroglossia surrounding the Rab-
shaqeh’s words into ‘an image completely shot through with dialogized
overtones’.69
In fact, the voice ideas articulated by the Assyrian in our
text virtually ‘plagiarize’ the ideas of the Major Prophets. These pro-
phetic borrowings are the ‘scaffolding’ on which the Rabshaqeh’s words
are set.70
6.1. Who Do You Trust?
One of the main themes in the Rabshaqeh’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 Rabshaqeh’s character zone, the sec-
ond voice in these utterances is that of the prophets. The Rabshaqeh’s
67. Assuming an original postmonarchic readership (probably largely of literati)
which were familiar with the prophetic writings as they existed at that time (pre-
canonical, but perhaps proto-canonical).
68. Cf. Dominic Rudman, ‘Is the Rabshakeh also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical
Study of 2 Kings XVIII 17-35’, VT 50 (2000), pp. 100-110; Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘Who Wrote
the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?’, JBL 109 (1990), pp. 79-92; and Danna Nolan
Fewell, ‘Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18.13–19.37’, JSOT 34 (1986),
pp. 79-90.
69. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, pp. 278-79.
70. 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, Encyclopedia, p. 245.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 353
perspective regarding trust in Egypt is shared by Isaiah (31.1), Jeremiah
(2.37) and Ezekiel (29.16). The Rabshaqeh (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 Rabshaqeh’s speech) agrees or dis-
agrees 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.71
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 oppo-
sition 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, 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 Rabshaqeh’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 (2 Kgs 18.30). At first glance, this is completely at odds with
prophetic perspectives.72
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
71. In this narrative, the army of Sennacherib never returns to Jerusalem after hearing
of Tirhakah’s advance. In fact, the location of the Assyrian army that 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 Deuter-
onomistic 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 (p. 124).
72. Cf. Isa. 7.9; 30.15; Jer. 17.7.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
354 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
Zion, the cosmic mountain.73
Just as Jeremiah disparages trust in the
divine temple as guarantor of divine defence, so the Rabshaqeh depre-
cates trust in Yahweh as guarantor of divine defence. 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.74
The Rabshaqeh also seems to inti-
mate a similar critique against trust in the temple when he criticizes
Hezekiah’s removal of altars and high places in favour 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’
(2 Kgs 19.34). This may imply that it is due to Hezekiah’s trust that
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, irrespec-
tive of Hezekiah and his actions.75
Once again we are left only with the
chronotype where these voice ideas intersect.76
6.2. Divine Patronage
The reason for the Assyrian’s warning against trusting in Yahweh in this
instance also has a double-voiced ring of prophetic truth to it. In 2 Kgs
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 Rabshaqeh’s words that Yahweh had sent Assyria ‘to
take spoil and seize plunder’ (Isa. 10.6). In fact (as noted above), within
73. As Carol Meyers (‘Temple, Jerusalem’, n.p., ABD on CD-ROM. Version 2.0c.
1995–96) has asserted, ‘The temple building, on a mountain and a platform, replicates the
heavenly mountain of Yahweh’.
74. For example, Montgomery interpreted this as indicating the Ark of the Covenant
with the golden cherubim. See Montgomery, Book of Kings, p. 403.
75. As Richard D. 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 fid-
elity ‘immaterial at this point’ (‘The Anatomy of the Book of Kings’, JSOT 40 [1988],
pp. 39-48).
76. Green (Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, p. 56) succinctly defines the
chronotope as ‘the interrelatedness of time and space’.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 355
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 Yah-
weh’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 Rabshaqeh’s discourse (his
claim to divine sponsorship) but not ‘in the direction of [Rabshaqeh’s]
own aspirations’.77
Yahweh parodies the conclusions which the Assyrian
draws from his realization of divine patronage. Yahwistic backing of the
initial campaign did not guarantee Assyrian autonomy and victory.
Contrary to the Assyrians’ 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 Isa. 10.5. In sum, the hetero-
glossia 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.
6.3. 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’ (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, 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,
77. Bakhtin, Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 193.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
356 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
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 blasphemers. How-
ever, 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.
7. Conclusion
Employing a Bakhtinian model which views the Hezekiah–Sennacherib
narrative as a polyphonic text has allowed a fresh analysis of the narra-
tive. As noted at the start of this study, such a model has implications for
both source-critical and synchronic 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. 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’,78
and in this regard a Bakhtinian approach is also
helpful.
Regarding the actual process of composition of the book of Kings, this
study may also have implications for locating the author and his reader-
ship historically. Both the character zone of the Rabshaqeh 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, fixing a
78. Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1979), p. 7.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EVANS The Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative 357
terminus a quo for the composition of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narra-
tive can be accomplished in tandem with historical conclusions regarding
the completion and/or availability of the prophetic literature for not only
the author but his wider readership. While this observation cannot solve
the question surrounding the dating of this composition, it may point to a
later date for the composition of this narrative than the Harvard School
would suggest.79
Perhaps it is simply anachronistic to suggest that Dtr was a truly
polyphonic writer in the sense that Bakhtin meant. Though Bakhtin
viewed Dostoevsky as a truly polyphonic author, most critics would sug-
gest that Bakhtin was actually wrong in this judgment. But, as Newsom
has asserted, ‘as a theoretical ideal, Bakhtin’s model is significant’.80
Bakhtin’s truly polyphonic author allows other voices in the text to
interact without authorial restraint, which has such striking similarities to
the author of the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative that perhaps we could
posit Dtr as an ‘unconscious polyphonic author’.81
That is, even if he did
not consciously attempt to leave these disparate voices juxtaposed, that is
in fact what he did. Through appropriating discrete sources, which are
now unidentifiable,82
Dtr composed his narrative, allowing many of these
sources to speak their distinctive voice, while creatively composing the
79. That is, a Josianic author/compiler is probably too early to allow for the
completion and dissemination of prophetic literature alluded to within this narrative. See,
e.g., Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
(JSOTSup, 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).
80. Cf. Carol Newsom, ‘The Book of Job as Polyphonic Text’, JSOT 97 (2002), pp.
87-108 (92). Newsom has suggested reading the book of Job ‘as if’ it was written by a
polyphonic author as a heuristic device. Her approach to the issue of the unity of Job has
inspired the present study (as its title conveys), though I would go further to suggest 2
Kgs 18–19 was actually written in such a manner, even if unconsciously.
81. Newsom suggested the term ‘unconscious polyphonic authorship’ in reference to
the biblical writers in public discussion with Barbara Green at the Annual Meeting of the
Society of Biblical Literature in Washington, DC in November 2006.
82. Though Dtr obviously relied on sources (note, e.g., the identical amount of sil-
ver Hezekiah pays in 2 Kgs 18.13 and in Sennacherib’s annals), these sources cannot be
so easily identified as the Stade–Childs hypothesis would suggest. For recent dissen-
ters to these source delineations, cf. Klaas A.D. Smelik, ‘King Hezekiah Advocates
True Prophecy: Remarks on Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii//II Kings xviii and xix’, in Klaas
A.D. Smelik (ed.), Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite
Historiography (OTS, 28; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 93-128 (124); Christopher R.
Seitz, ‘Account A and the Annals of Sennacherib: A Reassessment’, JSOT 58 (1993),
pp. 47-57.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
358 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.3 (2009)
narrative himself.83
This explains a number of things: the divergent
viewpoints present in the narrative; the difficulty in precisely separating
the narrative into sources; and the coherence of the narrative and its merit
as a piece of literary art.
The Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative leaves some questions unan-
swered and unfinalized. This may indicate the author’s ambivalent
disposition towards the canonical prophetic books,84
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 deter-
mining the function of this narrative than an appeal to hypothesized
sources and basing interpretation on these discrete parts of the text
without relating them to the whole.
83. In keeping with Noth’s view of Dtr as creative author. Recently Van Seters has
attempted to bring back this emphasis of Noth’s and his view that Dtr was not a redactor.
See John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical
Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 261-62. The amount of creativity to
be attributed to Dtr has been the subject of much debate. Some suggest Dtr merely joined
together different sources without change. For example, M. Cogan (I Kings [AB, 10;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001], p. 95) asserts that the author of Kings ‘does not
seem to have made any effort at erasing the telltale signs of the individual sources; each
was left to speak out in its own distinctive idiom and particular statement—hence its
visibility’. Others call for a recognition that Dtr was actively involved, being not only
selective in his sources, but actually shaping sources and creatively composing parts of
his narrative. As Steven L. McKenzie (‘The Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic
History’, in McKenzie and Graham [eds.], The History of Israel’s Traditions, pp. 281-
307 [301]) writes, ‘The time has come…to focus more on the creative process, that is to
investigate how Dtr combined and reshaped his sources and added material of his own in
order to make his points’.
84. Perhaps this same ambivalence would explain the curious omission of classical or
writing prophets (other than Isaiah) from the narratives of the Deuteronomistic History.
at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on July 21, 2012jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Top Related