Hezekiah's bribe (or fine) brought a temporary re- lease, for the Assyrians marched into Egypt, where, if Herodotus (ii, 141) and Josephus (^Ant. x, 1-3) are to be trusted, they advanced without resistance to Pelusium, owing to the hatred of the warrior-caste against Sethos, the king-priest of Pthah, who had, in his priestly predi- lections, interfered with their prerogatives. In spite of this advantage, Sennacherib was forced to raise the siege of Pelusium, by the advance of Tirhakah or Tara- kos, the ally of Sethos and Hezekiah, who afterwards united the crowns of Egjqit and Ethiopia. This mag- nificent Ethiopian hero, who had extended his conquests to the Pillars of Hercules (Strabo, xv, 472), was indeed a formidable antagonist. His deeds are recorded in a temple at ]Medinet-Abu, but the jealousy of the Jlem- phites (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, i, 141) concealed his as- sistance, and attributed the deliverance of Sethos to the miraciUous interposition of an army of mice (Herod, ii, 141). This storj' may have had its source, howe\er, not in jealousy, but in the use of a mouse as the emblem of destruction (HorapoU. Ilierogl. i, 50 ; Rawlinson, Ife- rod. ad loc), and of some sort of disease or plague (? 1 Sam. vi, 18; Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 185). The legend doubtless gained ground from the extraordinary circum- stance which ruined the army of Sennacherib.
Returning from his futile expedition (aTrpacroc avt- Xf^prirre, Josephus, Ant. x, 1, 4), Sennacherib "dealt treacherously" with Hezekiah (Isa. xxxiii, 1) by attack- ing the stronghold of Lachish. This was the commence- ment of that second invasion, respecting which we have such full details in 2 Kings xviii, 17 sq. ; 2 Chron. xxxii, 9 sq. ; Isa. xxxvi. That there were two invasions (con-
HEZEKIAH
228
HEZEKIAH
trary to the opinion of Layard, Bosanquet,Yance Smith, etc.) is clearly proved by the details of the first given in the Assyrian annals (see Rawlinson, Herod, i, 477). Although the annals of Sennacherib on the great cylin- der in the British Museum reach to the end of his eifjhth year, and this second invasion belongs to his fifth year, yet no allusion to it has been found. So shameful a disaster was natiu-ally concealed by national vanity. From Lachish he sent agamst Jerusalem an army mider two officers and his cup-bearer, the orator Rabshakeh, with a blasphemous and insidting summons to siu-ren- der, deriding Hezeldah's hopes of Egyptian succor, and apparently endeavoring to inspire the people with dis- trust of his religious innovations (2 Kings xviii, 22, 25, 30). The reiteration and peculiarity of the latter argu- ment, together with Eabshakeh's fluent mastery of He- brew (wliich he used to tempt the people from their allegiance by a glowing promise, ver. 31, 32), give comi- tenance to the supposition that he was an apostate Jew. Hezekiah's ministers were thrown into anguish and dis- may; but the undaunted Isaiah hurled back threaten- ing for tloreatening with unrivalled eloquence and force. He even prophesied that the fires of Tophet were al- ready burning in expectancy of the Assyrian corpses wliich were destined to feed their flame. Meanwhile Sennacherib, having taken Lachish (an event possibly depicted on a series of slabs at Mosul, Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 148-152), was besieging Libnah, when, alarmed by a " rumor" of Tirhakah's advance (to avenge the de- feat at Altagu?), he was forced to relmquish once more his immediate designs, and content himself with a defi- ant letter to Hezekiah. Whether on the occasion he encountered and defeated the Ethiopians (as Prideaux precariously infers from Isa. xx. Connect, i, 26), or not, we cannot tell. The next event of the campaign about which we are informed is that the Jewish king, with simple piety, prayed to God with Sennacherib's letter outspread before him (comp. 1 IMacc. iii, 48), and received a promise of immediate deliverance. Accordingly " that night the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians 185,000 men."
There is no doubt that some secondary cause was employed in the accomplishment of this event. We are certainly " not to suppose," as Dr. Johnson observed, " that the angel went about with a sword in his hand stabbing them one bj' one, but that some powerful natu- ral agent was employed." The Babylonish Talmud and some of the Targums attribute it to storms of lightning (Vitringa, Vogel, etc.) ; Prideaux, Heine {De causa iStruff. Assyr. Berl. 1761), Harmer, and Faber to the si- moom ; R. Jose (in Seder Olum Rabba), Marsham, Ush- er, Preiss (Z)e causa clad. A ssyr. Gottingen, 1776), to a nocturnal attack by Tirhakah ; Paitlus to a poisoning of the waters ; and, finally, Josephus (.4 nt. x, 1, 4 and 5), followed by an immense majority of ancient and modern commentators (including Michaelis, DiJderlein, Dathe, Heusler, Bauer, Ditmar, Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel, etc., and even Keil), to the pestilence (compare 2 Sam. xxiv, 15, 16). This woitld be a cause not only adequate (Jus- tin, xix, 11; Diodor. xix, 4"A; see the other instances quoted by RosenmiiUer, Keil, Jalm, etc.), but most prob- able in itself, from the crowded and terrified state of the camp. There is, therefore, no necessity to adopt the in- genious conjectiu-es by which Doderlein, Koppe, and Wessler endeavor to get rid of the large number 185,000. It is not said where the event occurred: the prophe- cies concerning it, Isa. x-xxxvii, seem to denote the neighborhood of Jerusalem, as would Psa. Ixxvi, if it was written at that time. On the other hand, the nar- rative would probably have been fidler had the over- throw, with its attendant opportunities of beholding the bodies of their dreaded enemies and of gathering great spoil, befallen near Jerusalem, or even within the imme- cUate limits of Judah. That version of the story which reached Herodotus (ii, 140) — for few after Josephus wiU hold with E;vald (GescJi. iii, 336) that the story is not substantially tlie same — indicates the frontier of Egj'pt,