And the Siloam Channel, usually attributed to a much earlier king of Judah, was actually the watercourse that 2 Chronicles 32 attributes to Hezekiah.
Yet they do not even mention this obvious chronological similarity.Several verses separate the reference to the watercourse in 2 Chronicles from the war preparation descriptions in 2 Chronicles 32:2–8. It can hardly have been later in Hezekiah’s reign, after 701 B. E., given the traumatized economy and weakened condition of Jerusalem in the aftermath of Sennacherib’s campaign in Judah.Maybe this is because the water project was not undertaken at the same time as the war preparations; perhaps it was earlier in Hezekiah’s reign, which began in 715 B. Or perhaps the water project did indeed occur at the same time as the war preparations, and the author of Chronicles has only mentioned it as an afterthought. But while we cannot state with certainty exactly when and how these events played out, a critical review of the study by Sneh, Shalev and Weinberger raises two questions: (1) How could the authors not have addressed the obvious issues pointed out above, namely the textual allusions to existence of the Siloam Channel prior to Hezekiah’s reign and the historical evidence for the four-year period of Hezekiah’s revolt?Sargon’s successor, Sennacherib, was occupied quelling the revolts in the east during the first three years after Sargon’s death. that he was able to turn west and conduct his ferocious campaign against Judah.It was only four years after Sennacherib’s coronation in 701 B. In the four years between the commencement of Hezekiah’s revolt and the arrival of Sennacherib in Judah, Hezekiah made ready for the inevitable Assyrian response.