The death of Sargon in 705, and the accession of a.new and untried king, was the signal for a fresh attempt on the part of many vassals to regain their independence. In the first instance Sen- nacherib directed his attention to his rebellious subjects in the ea-st, and it was not tUl 701 that lie turned his arms against Palestine in his tliird campaign, of which we have several monumental records, the fullest being that on the Taj'lor cylinder. But the rebels were slow in arriving at concerted action, owing to their dependence on Egypt ; and in several of Isaiah's discourses about this time (chs. 29-32, cf. 18) we can trace the secret negotiations with E^pt, against which the prophet inveighs vehemently, predicting the utter failure of the hopes his countr\'n)en were setting on ' Rahab that sitteth stiU ' "(.30' RV), and tlie shame and ruin they would bring upon themselves by their faithless and short-sighted policy — which was destined, however, to issue in a man'eUous deliverance which would prove the regeneration of the national life. By this time H. had openly thrown ofi' his allegiance under the influence of his premier, Shebna, apparently of foreign extraction, whose downfall is predicted by Isaiah a little later in 22'"'-, and who afterwards appears in an inferior office in 36'. That H. took a leading part in the revolt is evident from the fact recorded by Sen- nacherib in the cylinder referred to (col. ii. 11. 70 ff.), that Ii. had imprisoned at Jerus. Padi, king of Ekron, whose subjects had dethroned him on account of his loyalty to Assyria.
After reducing or receiving the submission of a number of powers on the east and north of Palestine, Sennacherib proceeded southward along the Maritime Plain, to punish the ringleaders in the revolt. In doing so, it is possible that he may have despatched a portion of his army to invade Judah from the north, and of this some writers find e>'idence in the description of the Assyr. advance in Is lO^*-*". But probably this is only an ideal picture, and the great prophecy of which It forms part (IC-ll''), proclaiming both the mission and the doom of Assyria, admits of other dates, eg. 711 (Cheyne [who, however, connects
vv. -'"""'- with the siege of Samaria in 722], Ciuthe, Dilliiiann, Giesebrecht) and even earlier (W. K. Smith, CI. A. Smith). The Assyr. record goes on to tell that Sennacherib took Ashkelon, and that Ilia apjiroach hsul struck terror into the hearts of the men of Ekron when he was confronted by a great army of Egyptians and Sinaitic Arabians under several of their kings, who had come to the relief of Ekron. These he defeated at Eltekeh {Altaku), and afterwards took Ekron. It was only then apjiarently that he sent his troops into Judah, where (he says) they took 46 fenced cities and small towns without number, carrying oil 200, 150 captives (i>robably an exaggeration) and obliging H. to sue for peace, which was granted him on payment of heavy exactions, including 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, a narrative which is in substantial agreement with 2 K IS"", even the discrepancy between the 300 and the 800 talents of silver bemg perhaps accounted for by the different standards of the two countries (Brandis, Munz-system, p. 98).
Such crushing calamities (Is l'"-) could not fail to be regarded as a vindication of the prophet's counsel, and a condemnation of the policy to which he had been so strongly opposed. H.'s eyes were now opened to see where tlie true interests of his kingdom lay ; and from this time we find Isaiah enjoyin" his fullest confidence, and guiding the national policy. But there were some on whom the lesson was lost, painful though it had been — citizens who gave themselves up to shameless mirth and revelry as soon as they saw the beleaguering force preparing to withdraw (Is 22). They tliought the crisis was over, but it was not so. For Sen- nacherib soon realized the danger to w hich his army would be exposed if he advanced into Egypt, leaving such a strong fortress as Jerus. in the liuuds of a doubtful vassal like H. ; and even at the ex- pense of a breach of faith with II. (Is .33'-*, Jo.« Ant. X. i. 1) he resolved to make a fresh demaml for its surrender. Recent critics (Stade and his followers) have detected in the long narrative (2 K 18"-19") a somewhat confu.sed combination of two difrerent accounts, which, if referring to two diflerent occasions, ought to be transposed ; and Tiele would evenplace lajst of all the events related in 2 K IS""". The problem is too intricate to be dealt with here. But there is no reason to doubt that Sennacherib made a renewed attempt from Lacbish (with which his militarj- achievements are associated in recently - discovered monuments, although he himself does not mention it even by name), and perhaps also from Libnah, to which he may have retreated on hearing that Tirhaka w'lis coming out to meet him (2 K 19*). That he failed to take Jerus. is almost implied in his own vague statement that he shut up H. like a bird in a cage ; and his concluding boast about the tribute and other gifts being sent to him at Nineveh (instead of to Lachish, as related in Scripture) is evidently introduced to save any necessity for recording his subsequent disasters. These disasters are involved in mystery. But the biblical account finds an echo in the story told by Herod, (ii. 141), the de- struction of his army being probably due to a plague (2 K 19», Is 37", cf. 2 S 2i'"-, 1 Cli -il""- ami Is 6"-) in the pestiferous region on the borders of Egypt where the Crusaders and others have had a similar experience (cf. 2 K 19** RV). The impression made on Sennacherib was such that though he lived for twenty years longer he never again entered Pal. or besieged Jerusalem. On the other hand, the dramatic account of the conference between his three emissaries (all whose names have now been identified with the titles of Assyr. officers) and the tliree Jewish deputies, on a famous spot under the walls of Jerus. (cf. Is 7'),