Senacherib and Hezekiah

Isaiah 36-39

     This section of Isaiah is the same story found in II Chronicles chapter 32. Isaiah is a minor character in that telling, but here he is a major player in the life of the king of Judah. In this story the Assyrian king sends his troops to Judah in order to take over the land and own Jerusalem. This is a fine example of what makes the Old Testament so interesting and worthy of studying. The Bible narrative is like a spiral with the past not necessarily repeating itself over and over again, but each new generation's experiences echo that of the previous ones. The gift of the prophet is being able to see this pattern and try to get people to break the negative cycles in order to begin positive, more beneficial ones. This is why a prophet will usually verbally repeat the entirety of Jewish History before beginning a new prophecy. Its hard to see the echos when you are in the thick of it, but if you remove yourself and look at things as an outsider patterns are much more obvious.
    The story of Isaiah and Hezekiah is considered to be the end of Proto Isaiah. The story is a more fleshed out of the same telling in the II Chronicles version with Isaiah having a more expanded role. The events that are mentioned in the book of Isaiah, while similar to the story of Chronicles, do not necessarily match up to what we know about archaeological history. There are disagreements about specific dates for these kings and the conflicts with the surrounding nations mentioned in the Bible, but that does not mean that they should be discounted entirely.
    Time is a tricky thing and with our many revisions over the centuries of how we measure it, not to mention how ancient cultures measured it, its easy to find discrepancies in recorded history. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that this story is based on actual events. Besides these written accounts that can be dated back to an origin of at least 300-150 B.C. there are actual cuneiform records from the Assyrian Empire that date back to the actual time the events took place. The tunnel that Hezekiah built to keep water flowing to Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege is still preserved and one of the oldest, unchanged, biblical sites today.
    The King of Assyria mentioned in the book of Isaiah, Sennacherib, was an actual person. He was the King of Assyria during the late 600s B.C. There are records of his campaigns against surrounding nations that are dated to 690 B.C. and record events that are mentioned in the Old Testament such as the Assyrian attack on Samaria mentioned in II Kings 17-18 as well as his conquest against the city of Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Judah. The cuneiform even mentions Hezekiah by name and claims that he was shut up in Jerusalem like a 'caged bird'. Where it differs is that it has no mention of any major losses due to an attack from Judah, neither from divine angels of destruction or well equipped army. It was the practice of the ancient kings to only record victories and sometimes to even claim a victory when in reality they were defeated. There are many examples in archaeology of records being found concerning a battle between two ancient nations and each side claiming an enormous victory.
     That is what makes this story so compelling, and the idea that the prophet Isaiah was actually a real person. The other players mentioned in the story are verifiable, but there is no other source outside of the Hebrew scriptures that mentions this man or his role in this historical event. Regardless, his importance in Judaism and Christianity is significant. Christians use many of the prophecies of Isaiah to point to their fulfillment in Jesus. The Jews of Jesus's time used the prophecy to keep their culture strong in the face of Roman occupation and a few, such as the Essenes, even used it as a guidebook to prepare for the end of days. There are some theories that the Essenes may have actually been the inspiration for John the Baptist and Jesus's movement. Physical, historical, verifiable Isaiah is not, but that doesn't mean he is not an important influence on the history of the world as we know it.