Jeremy Goldberg, «Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezehiah and Later Eight Century Biblical Chronology», Vol. 80 (1999) 360-390
The massive Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13b; 18,1719,37) has apparently been confused with an earlier, limited invasion in Hezekiahs 14th year (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13a.14-16; 2 Kgs 20; 2 Chr 32; Isa 22). Historically, this earlier campaign can best be dated to 712, when Sargon II apparently led the Assyrian royal guard on a Palestinian campaign. Chronologically, this dating fits perfectly with e.g. recent dating of the definitive fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 18,9: in Hezekiahs 6th year) to 720. 2 Kgs 18,9s parallel dating to Hosheas 9th year agrees with his apparent accession in 731 or 729. Dating Menahems death to 743 (as required, following biblical data, to avoid a triple overlap among Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz) agrees with Eponym Chronicle evidence for this dating of 2 Kgs 15,19-20s presumably already desperate fiasco, and is consistent with a plausibly composite 738 tribute-list naming Menahem. Combining these datings produces a workable later 8th century biblical chronology.
the aftermath of a limited pre-2 Kgs 18,1719,37 / before 701 campaign is very consistent with Hezekiahs prosperity, lack of repentance and ongoing plotting in 2 Kgs 20.
In a similar vein, 2 Chr 32,2-5 indicates that Hezekiah began a much-needed strengthening of Jerusalems defenses during an Assyrian invasion. This appears incredible during the invasion in 2 Kgs 18,1719,37 / 701 (or any post-701 invasion), since: 1) Jerusalem appears to have been well fortified at this time (cf. Sennacheribs blockade in 701; 2 Kgs 18,27s readiness for a long siege)14. 2) In view of the great extent of this building activity, as revealed by archaeology15, it must have been completed after the invasion during which it was started; but Judah was ruined and apparently submissive after the campaign in 2 Kgs 18,1719,37 / 701 (above with nn. 2-3). On the other hand, the limited preparation possible with such a late start provides a good background for the surrender on terms in 2 Kgs 18,14-16. This contrast is particularly important because 2 Chr 32,2-3s strangely late start appears to be confirmed by a striking parallel with Isa 22,816.
As fairly often noted, Isa 22,1-14s invasion of Judah also conflicts with 2 Kgs 18,13b; 18,1719,37 regarding e.g. vv. 12-14s utter lack of repentance (contrast 2 Kgs 19,1-2), v. 13s fatalistic revelry and feasting (contrast 2 Kgs 18,27), and the seeming focus of its invasion (cf. v. 7: "fairest valleys", v. 8: "covering of Judah" [literal translation]) on the lowlands (Shephelah) of western Judaea (contrast 2 Kgs 18,13b.17)17. On the other hand, this seeming focus