This verse, which is paralleled in Isaiah 37:9, speaks of an Egyptian ruler named Tirhakah coming to the inadvertent rescue of Israel when his advancing army distracted the Assyrian troops who were about ready to attack Israel. But early on, critical Bible scholars began to pick holes in this account on two related fronts: (1) that particular ruler (known in Egypt as Taharqa) was not the pharaoh during that particular time period, and (2) he was only a child at the time who was much too young to have led any army.
One halfhearted attempt to salvage the historicity of the biblical account was to posit some sort of confusion with a later battle between Egypt and Assyria of which there is no extant record (mentioned by LaSor and others). This theory has generally been abandoned for lack of any proof.
But the story doesn't stop there, and I mention it mainly because this is one of those rare cases, at least in the posts I have written, in which practically all Bible scholars covering a wide theological and denominational spectrum pretty much agree on a solution to a previously controversial subject. For proof of that statement, below are a host of comments listed somewhat randomly from the briefest to the longest.
Blenkinsopp states, “Perhaps the error arose because Taharqa commanded the army defeated at Eltekeh by the Assyrians [a victory recorded in Sennacherib's annals for 701/700 BC, according to T.C. Mitchell].”
“It is now agreed...that Tirhakah was old enough to lead an Egyptian army (though he did not rule Egypt till c. 690) and powerful enough to cause Sennacherib to falter.”(C.G. Martin)
Cogan and Tadmor: “Most recently it has been argued that Tihakah was indeed of age and could well have been at the head of the Ethiopian army force which engaged Sennacherib at Eltekeh...The title 'king of Ethiopia' in the present context is admittedly anachronistic, for only in 690 did Tirhakah ascend the throne.”
“Subsequent work of Egyptian chronology, however, has demonstrated that Tirhaka was about twenty years old and perhaps serving as a prince by 701 BCE..Moreover, no Assyrian texts mention any campaign to Syria-Palestine in 688 BCE, and archaeological evidence regarding the destruction in 701 BCE indicates that it was of sufficient devastation to obviate any need of further campaigns.” (Kelle and Strawn)
Oswalt says, “It is now clear that he did not become king of Egypt before 689 B.C. This fact has been used both to support the two-attack theory and to discredit the historical veracity of the account. However, the majority of modern commentators admit the possibility that Tirhaqah is here identified by a position which he held later in his life. Whether the two armies actually met is not clear. Assyrian records only mention the battle of Eltekeh, and they place that battle before the siege of Jerusalem. Of course, if the Assyrians had suffered a setback at the hands of Egypt at this point, they would probably not have mentioned it.”
“Gray argues that this reference to Tirhakah must describe a later campaign since he 'was much too young to have played such a role in 701.' He was from the Sudan and became coregent in 689 and sole king in 686, ruling over Egypt till 664. It is noteworthy that he is not called Pharaoh, which may suggest a date somewhat earlier than 689. Montgomery and Gehman disagree, stating, 'Years before his elevation to the throne he was in active military service.' Wideman agrees with Montgomery and Gehman, as do Patterson and Austel. Hobbs summarizes these scholars' opinion when he concludes that Tirhakah led Shabtaka's forces in this battle, then later became Pharaoh in his own right. There is no overwhelming reason, then, to doubt the legitimacy of the text's claims.” (House)
Depuydt: “A Nubian king named Taharqa (the vowels are hypothetical) did exist around the time in question. Consequently, the equation of Tirhakah with Taharqa has been universally accepted. However, there is a problem. Tahaqa's reign begins in 690 BCE (or perhaps 691 BCE) However, Sennacherib's only known Palestinian campaign took place in 701 BCE. Taharqa cannot have been king yet in 701 BCE, as 12 Kings 19:9 seems to imply. Three explanations have been proposed for this problem: (1) Tirhaza was a general, not yet a king, in 701 BCE; (2) the text is plainly anachronistic – that is, in error; (3) Sennacherib undertook a second Palestinian campaign, not attested in the sources, after 690 BCE. Most have assumed that King Shabaka ruled in 701 BCE, but just when the debate was in danger of turning stale, a new piece of evidence became generally accessible: a cuneiform rock inscription at Tang-i Var in Iran dating to Sargon II (721-705 BCE). At first sight, the inscription suggests that Shabataka's successor and Taharqa's predecessor, Shabataka, who Taharqa may have killed, ruled already as early as 706 BCE, five years before Sennacherib'scampaign of 701 BCE. Until now no regnal year higher than year 3 was known for Shabatka. Thus a length of reign for two to three years (c. 692-690 BCE) for Shabataka was not positively falsifiable.”
Lastly, the most recent, longest, and clearest explanation is that of James Hoffmeier which is given in the Summer 2025 issue of BAR magazine. He writes, “First, as the late Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen pointed out, the biblical authors clearly wrote their account of Sennacherib's invasion at least a decade in to Taharqa's reign, since they also reference Sennacherib's assassination in 680 BC (2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38). Thus, even though Taharqa was the Egyptian pharaoh when they were writing, the authors were presumably well aware he was not yet pharaoh in 701. By way of analogy, when one says that Queen Elizabeth II was born in 1926, they are not claiming she was also queen at that time, only that she eventually became queen. The biblical references to Taharqa are therefore proleptic [i.e. something that is anticipatory], not anachronistic.”
“Second, we know the Cushites practiced a type of collateral succession, in which the king was succeeded first by his brother, then by his eldest son, and finally by his younger son. King Piankhy died in 716, meaning Taharqa must have been born at least a few years earlier, making him about 20 years old in 701. His uncle Shabaka assumed the throne in 716, followed next by Piankhy's eldest son, Shebitku in 702. Thus, during the reigns of Sahbaka and Shebitku, Taharqa was a crown prince, only ascending to the throne upon Shebitku's death in 690. This may explain why the biblical writers identify him as king of Cush rather than pharaoh.”
“Third, several of Taharqa's own royal stelae, discovered at the temple of Kawa, confirm this situation...For example, the text on Tela IV, dated to Taharqa's sixth year (685 BC), tells us that he was summoned from Napata to Memphis by his elder brother, 'his majesty King Shebitku,' and that he had with him 'his majesty's army.' The intent of this troop movement under Taharqa's leadership (in service to his elder brother) apparently was for taking military action against Assyria in 701 BC. Similarly, in Stela V, Taharqa recalls that this event happened when he was 20 years old (which proves he was not a child in 701 BC, as some have argued). Taken together these stelae confirm Taharqa's critical role in Shebitku's northern campaign against Assyria, even though he was still crown prince at the time.”
“Finally, it is notable that in the Hebrew Bible, Tirhaqah is only called 'king of Cush'...and not 'pharaoh'...The absence of any reference to Tirhaqah as 'pharaoh' again suggests the biblical writers understood that in 701 BC Taharqa was simply a Cushite prince who perhaps ruled Cush on behalf of Pharaoh Shebitku in Memphis and thus was called 'king of Cush.'”