Comments on: Assyrian March Against Judah http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=assyrian-march-against-judah From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: BA Moeller http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-787664 BA Moeller Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:30:32 +0000 #comment-787664 Nor did it seem realistic to the cynical Assyrian general sent to insult the God of Israel. That some woeful calamity took place to turn the Assyrian King back to return seems quite obvious. For the cruelty of the Assyrian was infamous and no power would have allowed Hezekiah to reply as he did without a serious and likely lethal retribution. What cynics always fail to include into history is the potential truth that there is a God like that we read of in the Bible account who will jealously protect his Name and the people of His name. I for one am not so bold as to assert that this God is a mere fairy tale. See Psalm 2. Nor did it seem realistic to the cynical Assyrian general sent to insult the God of Israel. That some woeful calamity took place to turn the Assyrian King back to return seems quite obvious. For the cruelty of the Assyrian was infamous and no power would have allowed Hezekiah to reply as he did without a serious and likely lethal retribution.

What cynics always fail to include into history is the potential truth that there is a God like that we read of in the Bible account who will jealously protect his Name and the people of His name. I for one am not so bold as to assert that this God is a mere fairy tale. See Psalm 2.

]]> By: Vladimir Ilyich Pugachev http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-477217 Vladimir Ilyich Pugachev Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:22:02 +0000 #comment-477217 It seems to me that everybody puts the best spin they can on history. Thus Henry Ford was right when he famously said, "History is bunk." Obviously many Judean cities were captured by the Assyrians and Sennacherib did destroy Babylon. It seems highly unlikely that plague would kill 185000 Assyrians in one night without prior warning, so for my money, as a cynic who doesn't believe in fairy tales, it is the Bible, in this case, that is putting on the spin. It seems to me that everybody puts the best spin they can on history.
Thus Henry Ford was right when he famously said, "History is bunk."
Obviously many Judean cities were captured by the Assyrians and Sennacherib did destroy Babylon. It seems highly unlikely that plague would kill 185000 Assyrians in one night without prior warning, so for my money, as a cynic who doesn't believe in fairy tales, it is the Bible, in this case, that is putting on the spin.

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-318420 Bryan Walker Sat, 14 Aug 2010 02:39:16 +0000 #comment-318420 It seems that this article is based largely on the Assyrian kings writings. It is widely known that the validity of Assyrian records is not reliable due to Assyrian records indicating themselves that the Assyrian army never lost any battles. Are we to really give credence to the term "according to Sennacherib's boast" ? Afterall, if a defeat was acknowledged then the entire Assyrian empire would be in peril. Indeed, the biblical account is corroborated by the Greek historian Herodotus, Chaldean historian Berosus, and Jewish historian Josephus. Though the details may differ somewhat, They all validate the Old Testament's suggestion that Jerusalem was victorious rather than defeated. The proud Assyrian army, that struck terror in the hearts of all who opposed them, were vicious in their military campaigns. To suggest that the Assyrians would lay a siege then allow Hezekiah to retain his monarchy with a mere slap on the wrist is not believable. It seems that this article is based largely on the Assyrian kings writings. It is widely known that the validity of Assyrian records is not reliable due to Assyrian records indicating themselves that the Assyrian army never lost any battles. Are we to really give credence to the term "according to Sennacherib's boast" ? Afterall, if a defeat was acknowledged then the entire Assyrian empire would be in peril. Indeed, the biblical account is corroborated by the Greek historian Herodotus, Chaldean historian Berosus, and Jewish historian Josephus. Though the details may differ somewhat, They all validate the Old Testament's suggestion that Jerusalem was victorious rather than defeated. The proud Assyrian army, that struck terror in the hearts of all who opposed them, were vicious in their military campaigns. To suggest that the Assyrians would lay a siege then allow Hezekiah to retain his monarchy with a mere slap on the wrist is not believable.

]]> By: Doug T. Woodward http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-290715 Doug T. Woodward Sat, 05 Jun 2010 02:29:53 +0000 #comment-290715 My fault on the last comment...I misread it and it is a good point. The Bible does not imply an immediate death. My fault on the last comment…I misread it and it is a good point. The Bible does not imply an immediate death.

]]> By: Doug T. Woodward http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-290713 Doug T. Woodward Sat, 05 Jun 2010 02:22:12 +0000 #comment-290713 In regards to the other comment, II Chronicles 32:21-22 actually adds that point to the story. This was considered a huge failure by this very capable army. Even if one did not believe the Biblical account (not to say that this is what is implied by the other comment), it would be hard to explain why this huge and powerful army left the scene, especially after public comments were made by them to the contrary. They had come here to sack Jerusalem. They left defeated and humiliated. In regards to the other comment, II Chronicles 32:21-22 actually adds that point to the story. This was considered a huge failure by this very capable army. Even if one did not believe the Biblical account (not to say that this is what is implied by the other comment), it would be hard to explain why this huge and powerful army left the scene, especially after public comments were made by them to the contrary. They had come here to sack Jerusalem. They left defeated and humiliated.

]]> By: Judith Warren-Brown http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-march-against-judah.htm#comment-96311 Judith Warren-Brown Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:19:16 +0000 #comment-96311 The article was very informative, especially the information concerning Sennacherib's prayer of Shamach. However, I am curious about the nuance this author gives to 2Kings 19:35-37. Verses 35 and 36 read, "And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, there were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Ninevah." This passage does not imply that Sennacherib slinked back to Ninevah, nor that he was immediately killed by his sons. To say that he "lived at Ninevah" means that he did not die immediately. The article was very informative, especially the information concerning Sennacherib's prayer of Shamach.

However, I am curious about the nuance this author gives to 2Kings 19:35-37.
Verses 35 and 36 read, "And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, there were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Ninevah."

This passage does not imply that Sennacherib slinked back to Ninevah, nor that he was immediately killed by his sons. To say that he "lived at Ninevah" means that he did not die immediately.

]]>