The book of Isaiah reflects many of the population movements that took place in the period of its formation. Much biblical scholarship focuses on “the (Babylonian) Exile,” but as C. L. Crouch points out in “Isaiah and Migration,” mass population movements were carried out in the sphere of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians long before the Babylonians overthrew Jerusalem. She also calls attention to the migrations experienced by other nations, and to forces of displacement other than deportation, such as warfare, famine, and natural disasters. She analyzes the literary reception of these numerous involuntary migrations, and the ways in which the prophet and his audiences made sense of them.

This chapter summarizes evidence from the Second Temple period for the relationship between the terms “Israel/Israelite” and “Jew.” Challenging the previous consensus (insider/outsider) paradigm and its origins with Nazi scholar K.G. Kuhn, this chapter argues that the distinction between these terms is rooted in the biblical distinction between Israel and Judah, with “Jews” a subset of the larger category of “Israel,” a label also claimed by Samaritans (who were not Jews). Finally, the chapter connects the persistence of this terminological distinction with the theological paradigm of restoration eschatology, in which Jews continually recognize that the restoration of all Israel (including the tribes of the former northern kingdom) remains a future hope—an especially foundational paradigm in earliest Christianity.

Chapter 1 starts by tracing the archaeology of carpe diem. Rather than speculating about the origin of a motif that is already attested in Akkadian and Egyptian sources, this chapter looks at the Greeks’ own discourse of the past and how they constructed the origins of the motif. The focus of the chapter is the hedonistic epitaph of the legendary last king of Assyria, Sardanapallus. Greeks were fascinated with this foreign carpe diem text which seemed to precede their own history. In fact, however, it was by misunderstanding this foreign monument that they recreated its text; lurking behind Sardanapallus’ Assyrian orgy are Greek banquets and the present tense of performative Greek lyric. The chapter shows that the Sardanapallus epitaph allows for fascinating insights into Greek ways of reading epigrams. As the chapter discusses the reception of the Sardanapallus epitaph in authors such as Callimachus, Crates, Chrysippus, Alexis, and Rabirius, it shows how one of Epicurus’ detractors forges a false link between Epicurus and carpe diem, when he changes one word of the epitaph.

While scholars have outlined the general characteristics of ancient Mesopotamian commentaries from the first millennium BCE, much work remains to be done in examining the outliers among these compositions and what they can tell us about this important tradition. In an effort to better understand these outliers, we consider two of the few Mesopotamian commentaries that are extant in multiple copies. Focusing on celestial-divinatory commentaries, which are the best attested genre of commentary in Assyria and Babylonia, this chapter begins by introducing celestial-divinatory commentaries and the source text upon which most seem to comment, the omen series Enuma Anu Enlil (“When (the Gods) Anu, Enlil, (and Ea)”). The bulk of this contribution then considers the commentary on Tablet 14 of Enuma Anu Enlil and the exegetical series Šumma Sîn ina Tamartišu (“If the Moon at Its Appearance”), which are both atypical celestial-divinatory commentaries extant in multiple copies. We ask how the commentary on Enuma Anu Enlil 14 and Šumma Sîn ina Tamartišu interpret and relate to their source texts, how copies of these compositions are associated with one another, why these exegetical texts may have been copied in the first place, and how they may have been used in antiquity. Our analysis illuminates important, understudied aspects of both of these compositions while noting how the features therein should alter our conception of Mesopotamian commentaries on the whole.

In this chapter, a wide-angle historical approach contextualizes the use and significance of precious metal money in the broader region of the Levant from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age. It is argued that the weakening of centralized authority – reflected by the collapse of Egyptian rule in the southern Levant – left trade networks and routes vulnerable, profoundly affecting trade networks and leading to an increasing reliance on precious metal in order to carry out transactions. Next, the importance of precious metal money and fiscal institutions are examined in the context of emerging territorial states, based on a critical approach to biblical sources documenting the hoarding and use of gold and silver in tributary payments to overlords. Rather than having stimulated monetization, the incorporation of the southern Levant into the Neo-Assyrian Empire by the late eighth and seventh century is argued to have led to a depletion of the region from its silver. Only after the Egyptian takeover do we again observe fresh silver – e.g. from Aegean sources – arriving to the region through Egypt.

The First Dynasty, an unbroken succession of Amorite kings, lasted 300 years despite a major rebellion. Babylon had close relationships with the nearby cities Sippar, Kish, and Borsippa. Trade and alliances reached much further. The Sumerian king-lists of earlier times were replaced by Babylonian equivalents, various cities having their own version. Kings briefly recorded major events; names were given to each year of their reign for dating documents. Trade was widespread, by canal and river, or overland by donkey. Royal edicts excluded certain groups from trade. Evidence comes from a profusion of clay tablets. Official letters are plentiful. Priestesses of Marduk carried out trade for Babylon in other cities. The temple of Marduk was built and furnished with a golden throne. Elamite control over several major cities, which left its mark on temple design, was ended by Hammurabi late in his reign; there is a possible connection with Genesis 14:1–16. Regular edicts were issued to release individuals from debt and to regulate trade. The main powers were Halab (Aleppo), Eshnunna, and Larsa, until Hammurabi achieved supremacy and claimed divinity. His successor Samsu-iluna followed his father’s example.

Most modern studies of early Judaism or Christianity have presumed that the terms "Israelite" and "Jew" are coextensive, referring to the same people group. For nearly a century, the most commonly held model for the relationship between these terms is that "Israel" was the preferred insider term typically used by the people themselves, while "Jew" was an "outsider" term that insiders sometimes used by accommodation to outsider contexts. This chapter argues not only that the ancient evidence does not support this model but that the insider/outsider model is the result of assuming that these terms were used in antiquity as they were in pre-World War II Europe. The chapter concludes with a preliminary look at these terms and the related term "Hebrew" in the corpus of Josephus and proposes a new model that better accounts for the ways these terms were actually used in antiquity, arguing that they are not in fact coextensive but instead refer to overlapping but distinct groups.

The narrative Source BII includes a meeting of three Assyrian commanders accompanied by a large army with a Judean delegation at the conduit of the upper pool on the highway at the Fuller’s Field. Rāb-šaqê conveys to Hezekiah’s emissaries a message. He warns them not to rebel against Assyria, not to confront the Assyrian army with the aid of the Egyptians in a pitched battle, and not to trust YHWH for deliverance, since YHWH has allegedly sent Sennacherib to devastate the land of Judah. When Hezekiah sends a delegation to Isaiah to ask for YHWH’s aid, Isaiah delivers an oracle assuring the king of Judah not to fear, for a spirit will be given to the king of Assyria. He will hear a rumor, retreat to Assyria, and die by the sword. Source BII focuses on the murder of Sennacherib, on the Egyptian aid in a pitched battle, and mentions Taharqa, king of Kush, who would cause Sennacherib to retreat. The motifs of divine intervention, causing Assyria’s defeat and Sennacherib’s retreat and eventual murder, are the backbone of Source BII.

In Chapter 9, Strand BIII reflects the historical Sitz im Leben of the source in the Neo-Babylonian Period (the reigns of Nabopolassar and the early years of Nebuchadnezzar II). The author of this strand incorporated echoes of the events connected to the demise of the Assyrian Empire. More particularly, these echoes reflect the following events: a) the wars of the Babylonians under Nabopolassar on Assyrian soil from 616 to 609 BCE, during which the Babylonians devastated the heartland of Assyria and conquered its Western provinces, thus sealing Assyria’s demise; and b) the subsequent campaigns of the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II, during which the Babylonians crossed the Euphrates and conquered the Levant (605–598/7). The struggle between Assyria and Egypt over the Levant is omitted. During the siege of Jerusalem between 588 and 586 BCE, the people of Jerusalem decided to oppose the besieging Babylonians and not surrender. Jerusalem withstood a siege for a far longer time than any of the nations listed in Isa 37:12–13, namely during the conquests of the Neo-Babylonian Kings. Therefore, the people of Jerusalem could claim that God was protecting them and Jerusalem.

The question of the priority of Isa 36–37 over 2 Kgs 18–19 or vice versa has been raised in research for many years. There are numerous variations between the parallel texts. In comparing the Kings and Isaiah versions, Gesenius concluded that the Kings version was the original setting of the Hezekiah-Isaiah narratives. This view began to change with the study of Ackroyd. Profiting from Ackroyd’s work, Smelik raised several arguments for the primacy of the Isaiah text.

In Chapter 10, I present the differences created by the process of transmission. In the second part of the chapter, I present the results of the text-critical investigation according to the new proposal to divide the comprehensive text into sources A, BI, BII, and BIII. Most of the variations can be explained as a result of the attempt to integrate the different sources into one coherent narrative. In most cases, it can be shown that the prior version was in Isaiah; the editor of Kings attempted to hide the coarse stitches in the final narrative.

For millennia the story of Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance by the Angel of God from Sennacherib (in Isa 36–37/2 Kgs 18:13–19:37), has been perceived as the fulfillment of God’s words of salvation to Jerusalem as a reward for the pious king of the house of David.

Chapter 7 presents the historical reality of the period between the murder of Sennacherib in 681 BCE and the defeat of Assyria at the borders of Egypt in 673 BCE. Scholars did not consider the historical reality of Egypt and Kush, which excludes portraying Taharqa as a heroic victorious figure after 671 BCE, after which he could not have been depicted as the savior, who would come to the rescue of Jerusalem, since during the period from 671 BCE until his death in 664 BCE he was repeatedly defeated by the Assyrians and his kingdom conquered and subjugated. Thus, only a narrow window of opportunity can be detected for the composition of BII – the years between the murder of Sennacherib (681) and the conquest of Egypt by Assyria (671). During this period Assyria suffered a disastrous defeat, which might have been portrayed as the intervention of God’s angel in Isa 37:36. After the conquest of Egypt by Assyria in 671 BCE and the expulsion of the Kushites from Egypt never to return, Taharqa’s elevation to the role of savior would be highly improbable.

In Chapter 3, a fresh look at the text is suggested according to the historical-critical approach to solving the problems mentioned in Chapter 1.

In the Isaiah text (which will be the starting point for the investigation) by delineating the breaks in the sequence of the narrative and mutually exclusive contradictions, it is possible to isolate in Isa 36–37 threads of two discrete sources and a redactional strand. These were actually intertwined in the composition of the narrative, which tell different stories. They were composed at different times, for different purposes, describing various historical events and circumstances.

Instead of identifying twofold repetitions, it is possible to recognize threefold repetitions. The narratives include three different Assyrian delegations composed of various emissaries; three different messages conveyed by the Assyrians to the Judeans by different means, possibly at three (?) (different?) locations. There are traces of three different responses of Hezekiah to the Assyrian threat (excluding Hezekiah’s submission in putative source A). Finally, Hezekiah receives three different prophesies concerning the fate of the Assyrian king.

In Chapter 5, it is shown that Source BI reflects the events and atmosphere during the days of the Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BCE. The Assyrians devastated Judah in Sennacherib’s third campaign – a claim corroborated by 2 Kgs 18:14–16; Mic 1:10–16 and Isa 1:4–9, and the extensive archaeological excavations and surveys of the Judean kingdom. 2 Kings 18:14–16 (source A) preserves an account of Hezekiah’s subjugation to Sennacherib and payment of an enormous tribute. Hezekiah’s submission occurred, according to the biblical narrative, at the beginning of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah. Following the payment, Sennacherib sent his envoys to demand Hezekiah’s capitulation. The Assyrian annals describe the total submission of Hezekiah and a victory over his Egyptian allies. Hezekiah remained king of Judah and was not punished. The original Source BI, portraying the events during the 701 campaign, did not contain a description of an Assyrian defeat nor of the murder of Sennacherib, which occurred twenty years after his campaign to the Levant.

Chapter 14 is a summary of the book, reconstructing the process of the creation of the text in its different phases. According to the division of sources and strands, the question of the narrative’s original setting may also be answered. I advance a reason for the composition and incorporation of each of the sources and strands. I address the identity of the milieu of the composer, as well as the intended audience of his message. What message did the composers intend to convey to their audience at the different stages of the composition?

In Chapter 12, I investigate the intertextual relations between Isa 36–37 and the rest of the book of Isaiah. First, Isa 36–39 uses terminology that is characteristic of the entire book of Isaiah. The question arises if these terms are characteristic of Isaiah son of Amoz, and later authors and redactors embraced them, or whether these terms stem from a later hand, and a later redactor inserted them into Proto-Isaiah. Secondly, the intertextual relations between Isa 36–39 and Proto-Isaiah are investigated. I focus primarily on the so-called Denkschrift (Isa 6:1–9:6, and esp. Isa 7), Isa 20, and Isa 31. Thirdly, the suggestion that Isa 36–39 was originally part of an independent scroll, which contained historical narratives about Isaiah (Isa 7; 20; 36–39), is evaluated. Lastly, the claim that Isa 36–39 is a literary bridge between Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah is explored.

The main intention of Chapter 1 of this book is to detect the problems in the narrative of Isaiah 36–37. These include the existence of an almost identical narrative in 2 Kings 18:13–19:37, recurring repetitions, breaks in the narrative, contradictions and inconsistencies, and abrupt grammatical changes in consecutive sentences. I aim to suggest a comprehensive solution to these numerous problems.