More on the Annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian Armies…

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.

Yet, the nuances of this correlation appear to go deeper. If you recall in the previous post, in the Exodus narrative the substantiation for salvation is rooted in the self-glorification of the Lord (Ex 14:4, 7). In the Kings narrative, the salvation is also rooted in the glorification of the Lord (2 Kgs 19:19). However, in the case of the Kings narrative the substantiation for Jerusalem’s salvation is also rooted in David’s legacy. According to 2 Kgs 19:34, which is contextualized in an oracle that is given in response to Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kings 19:14-19), the Lord declares that he will protect the city for his sake and “for the sake of David” his servant. Hezekiah anchors his appeal for salvation in the character of the Lord, and the Lord vows to oblige his request, but in doing so, the Lord acknowledges that the salvation of Jerusalem is equally substantiated by the legacy of David.

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.

Ever since the late Frank Moore Cross and his students (namely Richard Nelson) proposed the so-called double redaction theory for the Deuteronomistic History, it has been commonplace for scholars to view the confines of Israel’s pre-exilic, grand historical narrative in terms of (some form of) Deuteronomy to (some form of) 2 Kings. Only later in the exilic and post-exilic period was this historical narrative redacted, eventually taking on the shape that you and I recognize. However, there have always been those who recognize the similarities of the Deuteronomistic material and some of the traditions in the Pentateuch, and biblical scholarship over the past couple of decades has seen the rise of arguments for an Ennateuch as the confines for Israel’s grand historical narrative (i.e. from Genesis-2 Kings). One very interesting theory that is rethinking the record of Israel’s historical accounts comes from Konrad Schmid, who essentially argues for two Israelite historical traditions that were amalgamated in the Persian Period (Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Trans. byJames D. Nogalski; Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

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…