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.
not omission or blatant falsification, as would presumably have been necessary for updating in the case of Israel85 and could very well have been considered undesirable.
Other biblical evidence probably bears directly on the dating of Menahems reported tribute. 2 Kgs 15,19 tells of a voluntary payment from Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser, "so that he would support him in holding on to the kingdom"86. This was associated with Tiglath-Pilesers personal (albeit transitory) presence in Israel (vv. 19-20). Since the Eponym Chronicle appears to indicate military paralysis in northern Syria in 743 (see just below), followed by north Syrian conflict with Assyria or Tiglath-Pilesers involvement elsewhere until 734 (the start of his Syro-Palestinian campaign, which postdates Menahem on both Assyrian and biblical evidence), a personal intervention by Tiglath-Pileser III in Menahems favor appears best dated to 743. The key point concerning this year is that the principal Urartian defeat occurred in Kummukh, clearly to the north of Arpad. As a result, the Eponym Chronicle entry for 743 appears to be clearly readable as a double entry: "In Arpad. A defeat was inflicted on Urartu"87. The contrast with entries for 742-740, each including "Against Arpad.", is widely taken to rule out this reading88, but very plausibly simply reflects temporary paralysis of north Syrian resistance to Assyria following the great Assyrian victory over Urartu in 743.
To be sure, the tribute from Menahem reported in Assyrian sources could be later than that recounted by 2 Kgs 15,19-20 (a possibility mooted by Tadmor)89. However a more economical solution is supported especially in view of the lack of other Palestinian tributaries in this early period by the evident backfire of Menahems Assyrian policy: After describing the very onerous taxation required to pay for Tiglath-Pilesers help, 2 Kgs 15,19-20 is generally thought to conclude banally and cryptically: "Then (w)