In support of the thesis that 2 Kgs 18:13, 17-20:19 “was antecedent to its subsequent adaptation to the rhetorical aims of the book of Isaiah,” Robert H. O’Connell noted that:
There are several considerations
that would support the view that the account of 2 Kgs 1:13, 17-20:19 antedated
its adaptation in [Isa] chs. 36-39. First, there is a series of omissions of
details that may have been considered superfluous to Isaiah’s aim to set up an
artificially idealized portrayal of Hezekiah (e.g., ‘his chief officers’ [2 Kgs
18:17], ‘son of Hilkiah’ [18:26], ‘from my hand’ [18:29], ‘a land of olive trees
and honey. Choose life and not death!’ [18:32], ‘listen to’ [18:32], “Hena and
Ivvah’ [18:34], ‘that night’ [19:35a], ‘the leader of my people’ . . . ‘I will
heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of YHWH’
[20:5], ‘on the third day from now’ [20:8], ‘Isaiah answered’ [20:9a]).
Second, the Isaiah account offers
a number of idealizing substitutions for material in 2 Kings. Apart from the
rather insignificant substation of ‘peoples’ (Isa. 37:18) for ‘nations’ (2 Kgs
19:17), the prophet significantly substitutes for the assuring words, ‘I have
heard your prayer’ (2 Kgs 19:20), the more energetic portrayal of Hezekiah in
the causal clause, ‘because you have prayed to me’ (Isa. 37:21); for the
indicative, ‘they did so and applied it to the boil and he recovered’ (2 Kgs
20:7b), Isaiah substitutes the imperative and result clause, ‘apply it to the
boil and he will recover (38:21); for the scant depiction, ‘made the shadow go
back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway/sundial of Ahaz’ (2 Kgs
20:11b), Isaiah dramatizes the portrayal with, ‘”I will make the shadow cast by
the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway/sundial of Ahaz”.
So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down’ (Isa. 38:8). These embellishments
lends further idealization to Hezekiah’s portrayal.
Third, there are selective omissions from Isaiah of materials that might too soon betray Hezekiah’s inordinate lack of personal fortitude and faith (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:14-16; or ‘they called for the king’ [18:18a], ‘before [Isaiah] had left the middle court’ [20:4a], ‘for my sake and for the sake of my servant David’ [20:6b; cf. 2 Kgs 19:34; Isa. 37:35], ‘that YHWH will heal me and’ [20:8], ‘”Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?” “It is a simple matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps”, said Hezekiah. “Rather, have it go back ten steps”. Then the prophet Isaiah called upon YHWH’ [20:9b-11a]). However, the war oracle consolation, 'Do not be afraid' אַל־תִּירָא֙ (2 Kgs 19:6) is retained.
Fourth, and more important, the
displacement of material in 2 Kgs 20:7-8 to follow that of 20:9-11, with
Hezekiah’s self-motivated thanksgiving son (Isa. 38:9-20) newly interposed (cf.
isa. 38:7-8, 21-22), retards the disclosure it was Hezekiah himself who had
requested a confirming sign of YHWH’s promise.
Fifth, and most important, besides Isaiah’s additions in 37:9 (‘when he had heard it’), 37:16 (the epithet, ‘Warrior’ [צְבָא֜וֹת]) and 37:18 (‘all’), there are three additions in ch. 39 that give an inside view into Hezekiah’s lack of discernment as to the Babylonian envoys’ potential threat to the security of Jerusalem: 39:1b (‘and had recovered’ [וַֽיֶּחֱזָֽק]), 39:2 (‘gladly’), and 39:3 (‘to me’). To this end, it is perhaps significant to notice the transposition of כָּל from the general ‘everything in his storehouses’ אֶת־כָּל־בֵּ֣ית נְכֹתֹ֡ה (2 Kgs 20:13) to emphasize the strategic blunder of showing them ‘his entire armory’ (וְאֵת֙ כָּל־בֵּ֣ית כֵּלָ֔יו, Isa. 39:2). It is only just and fitting, therefore, that YHWH should at last respond to his indiscrete hubris with the addition of his divine epithet of warfare, צְבָאֽוֹת [יְהוָ֥ה] (Isa. 39:5). What assures the negative characterization of Hezekiah is the shift from his tonne of self-consolation in 2 Kgs 20:19, ‘Will there not be peace and security in my lifetime?’ to his self-assured tone on Isa. 39:8, ‘There will be peace and security in my lifetime’. Above all, this inside view into Hezekiah’s lack of concern for the welfare of the Davidic house shows him to be so self-centered as to fall short of the messianic ideal. In view of the broader literary context, this realization may lessen the reader’s initial impression of Hezekiah’s character from that formed on the basis of his prayers and actions, described in the preceding chapters. Indeed, the contrast between Hezekiah’s idealization in the preceding chapters and the disclosure of his relative dispassion for the welfare of future Jerusalem may leave the reader somewhat disillusioned with Hezekiah’ as a model of Davidic kingship. (Robert H. O’Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 138-39 n. 2)
Further Reading
Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets
