Nabopolassar fought with an Assyrian-style army and took the throne of Babylon. Thirteen years later, Nineveh fell despite Egyptian help. Babylon took over much of the Assyrian empire. Later he defeated the last Assyrian king at Harran. His success was seen as Marduk’s revenge. Captured wealth from Assyrian royal cities allowed major building work at Babylon, which was continued by Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar II. Neither king left statues of themselves, and cylinder seals represent gods by their symbols. Major subsidence in the citadel required frequent rebuilding on the Southern Palace. The names of temples and gates were compiled on to a clay tablet as a literary work. Colour-glazed bricks adorned the Processional Way leading to the temple of the New Year festival outside the citadel walls. That festival is described. Some of his creations Nebuchadnezzar described as a Wonder, but he made no mention of the Hanging Garden. In a separate part of the citadel, Nebuchadnezzar built a Summer Palace. His conquests included Tyre and Ashkelon but not Egypt or Lydia. He sacked the Temple in Jerusalem and deported its royal family to Babylon. Other captives settled on land nearby. Business archives of long duration continue into the Achaemenid period.

Following unsuccessful attempts to keep the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar II on the throne, the usurper Nabonidus became king. Persian tribes had moved into Elamite lands, and the Medes made Harran a dangerous city; Nabonidus‘ mother, an aged acolyte of Ashurbanipal, resided there. His lengthy inscriptions are informative about his deeds and his character. He dedicated his daughter to the Moon-god at Ur according to precedent, and spent ten years in Arabia, leaving his son Belshazzar in charge in Babylon. He returned and restored the temple in Harran. Cyrus the Great brought his rule to an end, but continued to employ some high officials. Cyrus was probably of mixed Elamite and Persian descent. The Cyrus Cylinder, inscribed in Babylonian cuneiform for a Babylonian audience, used traditional denigration of the previous king Nabonidus, and acknowledged Marduk as Babylon’s god. In another cuneiform text, Nabonidus was mocked for his scholarly pretensions and for sacrilegious acts. Babylon continued to be the centre where all subsequent kings felt obliged to celebrate the New Year festival to be accepted as legitimate rulers. Old monuments were not defaced. Cyrus may have been responsible for an imitation of Babylon’s glazed bricks at Persepolis. He made his son Cambyses co-regent.

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.

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.

Strand BIII is a redactional strand that does not comprise an original complete narrative. The redactor, whose primary interest is theological, adds his comments into the earlier sources. He subtly combines BI and BII by incorporating characterizing Leitwörter of both sources into his composition. He integrated Source BI, the siege of Sennacherib, and Source BII, the divine victory over the Assyrians and punishment of their king. The editor described the involvement of God in defence of Jerusalem, consequently promoting the belief in the inviolability of Zion, the protection of the king of Judah and the house of David. He raises the following questions: Should Judah surrender or oppose the besiegers? Will God protect Zion? Did the people of Jerusalem offend God? What is the proper way to worship God? How should God be approached to ask for his help? What is the role of the king toward God?