Okay…so now I am finally ready to finish my postings on
the annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian armies. Forgive me, as there
have been a couple other posts in between. First, I wanted to push my newly
published book review in JESOT (…I mean who wouldn’t?). Then came the Robertson
controversy. However, now we are back!
In my previous post, I drew attention to 7 points of
contact between the narratives that recount two of the greatest Israelite military
victories. Those points of contact range from the semantic, to historical, to
thematic. I suggested that when viewed together, as a whole (synergism), they
point to a fascinating literary connection. I want to unpack the nature of that
connection here.
I believe that the literature is suggesting a typological
relationship between these events—that the writer of Kings presented the event
of Neo-Assyria’s failed siege of Jerusalem in a manner that would encourage his
readers to invoke the memories of Israel’s victory of Egypt for context and
significance. Let’s briefly look at Michael Fishbane’s methodological framework
(See his work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Claredon Press:
Oxford, 1988, Reprint, 2004).
Fishbane argues that inner-biblical typology is “a literary-historical
phenomenon which isolates perceived correlations between specific events,
person, or places early in time with their later correspondents” (351). Such a
relationship “celebrates new historical events insofar as they can be
correlated with older ones as a disclosure of the plentitude and mysterious
workings of divine activity in history” (352). According to Fishbane, syntactical and lexical
features most clearly set off such a connection, but ultimately the content of
the relationship most appropriately signals and defines the typology. Assuming
this scheme in the example offered here, the typology is ops the historical type
as it correlates two events within Israel’s history—the annihilation of the
Egyptian and Assyrian armies. More specifically, it is a retrojective
historical typology as the prototype event provides the framework for the
antitype’s presentation and interpretation. In other words, the Exodus
narrative, the prototype, provides the intellectual and theological framework
within which the Kings narrative, the antitype, is presented and understood.
I believe that this explains the numerous points of connection observed
between the two narratives, particularly the distinct usage of the verb ידע that is relatively foreign
to the books of Kings. The writer wants his readers to realize that the
annihilation of the Neo-Assyrian army is more than just a salvific event along
the historical continuum of the Lord’s people. Rather, Jerusalem’s salvation is
another foundational moment for Israelite history whereby the Lord
displays his mighty protection of his people.

Consequently, the correlation between narratives testifies to continuity and
development. The God who protected their ancestors still protects them, even
from the world’s most formidable military powers. Yet the community has
evolved, and the Davidic dynasty has become a foundational component that
defines their relationship with the Lord.
So are there any further implications for this proposal?
I believe that there are. Indeed, the comments that ensue will open the door to
a more robust and complicated discussion, which is for another time. However,
if this proposal has merit, then it is another example of why scholarship needs
to reconsider the nature and extent of Israel’s grand historical narrative that
was composed during the latter portion of Iron Age II.

One of Schmid’s historical traditions is
called the Moses Story, which spans (some form of) Exodus to (some form of 2
Kings). I find this intriguing, particularly to make sense of the typology that
I am proposing above. [In addition, we also have the weird notation of Hezekiah’s
destruction of the Nehushtan in 2 Kgs 18:4 that is left without an antecedent
if one assumes the traditional confines of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.] Could it be
that the Hezekian edition of Israel’s national history transcended the boundaries
of Deuteronomy-2 Kings to include elements of the Pentateuchal traditions? [Yes…I
am a proponent of the view that Hezekiah’s tenure as Judah’s king saw the extensive
composition of literature, including some type of a “Hezekian history.”]
I think so…perhaps…