A "Diagnostic" Note on the "Great Wrath upon Israel" in 2 Kings 3:27

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.) In a comprehensive article on 2 Kings 3, Erasmus Gass once again surveys scholarly opinions surrounding the term "great wrath" in v. 27.1 Designated in the text as affecting the Israelite forces surrounding the city of Kir-hareseth and necessitating their withdrawal from Jehoram's Moabite campaign, Gass noted that -... remains "highly controversial."2 Briefly reviewing the literature, the writer points out that explanations for the phrase have ranged from the theological, whether Yhwh or Chemosh was the source of the unnamed discomfiture, to the psychological-indicating an increase in the fighting morale of the Moabites so as to push back the invading troops.3 Broadly speaking, commentators tend to portray the cause for the Israelites' plight in "impressionistic" terms, rather than attributing it to something concrete. Gass himself offers the more nuanced position that "by using the multilayered noun ... the author could leave many options open to the readers."4 Without dismissing either the exegetical difficulties or the hermeneutic possibilities raised by the biblical episode, it is worth pointing out that ..., while certainly denoting divine anger in general,5 does sometimes refer to conditions that were frighteningly tangible, especially when the lexeme is employed in martial contexts. This is particularly the case in Jer 21:5. Here the noun refers to the outbreak of pestilence in Jerusalem, as the city suffers under the duress of a Babylonian siege,6 with Yhwh's displeasure being manifested in the spread of sickness among the confined populace.7 The association of "plague" with warfare is ubiquitous in the ancient world and is hardly surprising, considering the human and animal detritus of battle.8 That ... occurs in 2 Kings 3, where a similar operation had been directed against a Moabite stronghold, should not be overlooked and might well have some historical relevance toward explaining the abrupt halt to Jehoram's enterprise. While the biblical text focuses on the assault of "slingers" upon the city walls, it also indicates that the harried king inside attempted a "breakout" led by seven hundred "swordsmen"-hardly a small force (2 Kgs 3:26). Failing miserably, the desperate party is led to resort to offering a human sacrifice to their god. Regardless of the intention of the latter action-and the sense of sacrilege it may have provoked for the biblical audience-the turning back of the Moabite formation suggests that the military investment of the fortress was quite heavy. The Israelite divisions were able to achieve an envelopment complete enough to prevent any movement of the harassed defenders to turn back the assault.9 Consequently, 2 Kings 3 presents a scenario whereby the attacking contingents were now thoroughly hunkered down and were starting the arduous task of taking Kir-hareseth by siege. While the actions of the Israelite slingers are sometimes dismissed as "ineffectual,"10 it is likely that they were simply the opening salvos in the attempted strangulation of the city, while sappers and engineers were to go about their work of undermining bulwarks.11 By the same token, the investment of a city was a task that ancient armies sought to avoid at all costs.12 This reluctance was due not only to the logistical difficulties it placed upon the invading army but also to the deteriorating hygienic conditions that played a crucial role for both sides the longer the contest took.13 Inasmuch as sickness among the besieged populace became increasingly probable, the outbreak of contagion was equally a danger to offensive forces. Pestilence/ plague-whether typhoid, cholera, or dysentery-as the result of unsanitary conditions in camp, or through the contracting of illness from the targeted citizenry, could spread like wildfire, not only bringing a siege to an abrupt end but causing a near-victorious army to retreat in panic. A prime example of the phenomenon in the Bible is the sudden dissolution of Sennacherib's assault on Jerusalem because of a providential epidemic among the Assyrian forces (2 Kgs 19:35-36). …