INTRODUCTION The Judean monarch Hezekiah, who reigned in the last quarter of the eighth century B.C.E., remains one of the most significant figures in the study of the Hebrew Bible. The echoes of his rule may be felt far beyond the biblical corpus itself, in both Assyrian annals and reliefs, archaeolo­ gical finds, and rabbinic literature. His name is variously mentioned in no fewer than seven different biblical books, the annals of the Sargonid king Sennacherib, and a growing corpus of bullae.1 His regnal accounts are not only the longest within the respective books of Kings and Chron­ icles, but the former is largely duplicated in the book of Isaiah. These eleven chapters of biblical material vastly overshadow the comparatively meager record of all other monarchs throughout the divided kingdom, rivaled only in scope by the legendary David and Solomon. A necessary 1 2 Kgs; 1–2 Chr; Isaiah; Jeremiah (15:4; 26:18–19); Hosea (1:1); Micah (1:1); Proverbs (25:1). The mention of him as the great­great­grandfather of Zephaniah in Zeph 1:1 is debated as being the same individual, while the references to Hezekiah in Ezra 2:16; Neh 7:21; 10:18[17] are to someone else altogether. There are four variants of the name Hezekiah in the Hebrew Bible, attained by alter­ .-יָה or -יָהּו and the final elements as either ,יחזק or חזק nating the initial element as common throughout 2 Kgs 18–20; Isa) חִ זְקִ ּיָהּו :The possible forms are, in frequency order common throughout) יְחִ זְקִ ּיָהּו ;(cf. 1 Chr 3:13; 2 Chr 29:18, 27; 30:24; 32:15; Jer 26:18–19 ;39–36 Kgs 18:1, 10, 13–16; Prov 25:1; the debated 2) ז חִ ְ קִ ָ ּי הChr 29–32; cf. 2 Kgs 20:10; Isa 1:1; Jer 15:4); 2 Hos 1:1; Mic 1:1). In Assyrian cuneiform, the name is preserved as) יְחִ זְ קִ ּיָ ה ;(Zeph 1:1 IḪa-za-qi-a-ú and IḪa-za-qi-a-a-ú, see George Smith, History of Sennacherib (London: Williams and Norgate, 1878) 61, 63, 68; Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1924) 32–33, 77 (who reads a-a as ai). Based on the biblical .is to be preferred חִ זְקִ ּיָהּו evidence and in particular the extant bullae, the form At least eight seal impressions have been recognized as originating from the court of king Hezekiah, made from three or perhaps four disparate seals. Another seven bullae name five different royal stewards (Amariah, Azariah, Domla, Ushna, Yehozarah) who identify themselves as a “servant of Hezekiah.” For these artifacts, see Ruth Hestrin and Michal Dayagi, “A Seal Impression of a Servant of King Hezekiah,” IEJ 24 (1974) 27–29; Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences & Humanities, 1997) 172–73 no. 407; Robert Deutsch, Messages from the Past: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah Through the Destruction of the First Temple (Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 1997) 31 no. 2; 52–53, nos. 3–4 [Hebrew]; idem, “Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian­Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals,” BAR 28/4 (Jul.–Aug. 2002) 42–51, 60; Frank Moore Cross, “King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery,” BAR 25/2 (Mar.–Apr. 1999) 42–45, 60; G. M. Grena, Lmlk— A Mystery Belonging to the King, Vol. 1 (Redondo Beach, Cal.: 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004) 26 figs. 9–10. 2 introduction consequence of this prominent exposure is that the Hezekiah of tradi­ tion gradually developed into a figure potentially far removed from the Hezekiah of history. For all of his greatness, however, there is little that may be stated with certainty about this Judean ruler. His years of reign are disputed, and such chronological issues have raised questions in regard to his lineage. The strength and size of his empire has long been a matter of debate, along with the attribution and function of the ubiquitously preserved stor­ age containers known as lmlk jars. Whether or not he instituted a cultic reform is no less divisive an issue in scholarship than ascertaining the number of campaigns Sennacherib made to Judah. Dissent persists as to whether any of the prophecies of Isaiah ben Amoz refer to Hezekiah, and exegetes remain skeptical as to whether his account in the ideologically motivated writings of the Chronicler has any historical value. Thus on the one hand, a thoroughgoing investigation into these perennial questions is partially justified. Recent archaeological discoveries substantiating the expansion of the city of Jerusalem in the late eighth century B.C.E., as well as its correspond­ ing growth in population, have renewed interest in the Judean kingdom under the reign of Hezekiah. Contemporary scholarship on economic conditions in the region has continued apace, along with data relating to decommissioned cultic sites of the period and the aforementioned lmlk jars. Questions have been raised as to the expanse of the Josianic empire and notable mainstays of biblical history have been feasibly antedated to the reign of Hezekiah, such as the legal core of Deuteronomy and the initial editing of the Deuteronomistic History.2 These advances aid in plac ing Hezekiah in his proper context in history, while at the same time laying the groundwork for his depiction in later biblical tradition. In short, our picture of Hezekiah is not the same as it was even a decade ago. This 2 The wealth of biblical research spawned by Martin Noth’s ground­breaking work on the Deutero nomistic History over fifty years ago still nuances the proper distinction be tween the adjectives ‘Deuteronomic’ and ‘Deuteronomistic’, as scrutinized in Richard Coggins, “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” in J. Davies, G. Harvey, and W. G. E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (JSOTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 135–48. I adhere to the delineation proffered by Norbert F. Lohfink, “Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?” in L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 38: “Deuteronomic” pertains to Deuteronomy, while “Deuteronomistic” pertains to material influenced by Deuteronomy..