Chapter 5 explores how Harriet Martineau’s travel narrative Eastern Life, Present and Past and Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s poem “The Burden of Nineveh” organize time through ruins from the eastern Mediterranean. Eastern Life, which was criticized for its unorthodox historicization of Christianity, imagines how ruins themselves experience human empires across centuries. The temporal form of the ruin, Martineau shows, is a capacious present in which the revolutions of human religions and empires become insignificant. Rossetti’s poem, which focuses on ancient Assyrian relics arriving at the British Museum, similarly surrenders human duration to the ruin’s own temporality. For Rossetti, the museum’s attempts to redefine the ruin within its own linear historicism necessarily fail because the ruin has already proven its endurance through many changing imperial narratives. Both Rossetti’s and Martineau’s texts depict ruin as a temporal form that outlasts any empire’s claims to significance, challenging the centrality of human experience in time.

Early attempts by Parthian rulers to take Babylon were short-lived, but in 141 BC they established their kingship by celebrating the New Year festival. Chronicles and astronomical diaries continued to be written. An independent ruler of Maysan in the Sealand, Hyspaosines, captured the port on the Tigris, took control of Bahrain and Failaka to control Gulf trade, and briefly claimed kingship of Babylon. He wrote in Aramaic. The Parthians regained control and rebuilt the Greek theatre. The old buildings and city plan continued to be in use, although the Summer Palace had been reroofed with terracotta tiles. New kinds of text were written on clay in cuneiform, astronomical science developed; an archive shows that temples were still active, and much older literature was still prized. Greek knowledge of the Epic of Creation was still alive in Athens from the time of Alexander until the sixth century AD. The cult of Bēl had spread west to Palmyra, to the Aegean island of Kos, and north to Edessa. In AD 116 Trajan visited the Summer Palace on a pilgrimage to the place where Alexander had died.

Relations with Assyria dominated from the tenth to the late seventh century. Marduk’s reputation was tarnished as Babylon lost power. Tribes of Chaldeans and Arameans moved into the Sealand, where some settled, becoming literate and powerful. Iron gradually replaced bronze. Fine stone carving continued. Warlike Assyrian kings venerated Babylon, incorporated its gods into their pantheon, and treated the city separately from the rest of Babylonia; but Assyria and Babylon clashed east of the Tigris at Der. Chaldeans intermittently took the throne. Tiglath-pileser III, the first Assyrian king to become king of Babylon, took part in the New Year festival; Sargon II, the second, deposed a Chaldean and deported many disloyal groups, but invested in the city. When Sennacherib ruled Assyria, various rulers of Babylon and interference from Elam ended when he sacked Babylon, which remained kingless for seven years. His patricidal son Esarhaddon made some restitution. At his early death, Esarhaddon’s elder son took the throne, dominated by his younger son, Ashurbanipal, whose library at Nineveh included many Babylonian texts. Betrayed by his brother under Elamite influence, Ashurbanipal sacked Babylon. Royal records end, and three subsequent kings are poorly attested. Nabopolassar, a Babylonian general working in the Assyrian army, defected and took the throne of Babylon.

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.

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?

Chapters 4–9 will take a further step in the search to reconstruct and date the different putative sources that form the story of Jerusalem’s deliverance. I will attempt to reconstruct each coherent source by tying together the threads of narrative that were detected in the previous chapters. I will address questions of literary composition, narration, continuity of themes and ideas, the coherency of the narrative, repetitions, structure, ideological, and religious aspects in the story.

The historical events span over a century and a half. I will reassess the time of the composition of the different sources and strands. Each discussion of a reconstructed source will be followed by a historical chapter that provides the historical-political Sitz im Leben of the narrative. I will suggest a historical situation in which the strand could have been written and the raison d’être of the composition. To do so, I will explore relevant extra-Biblical sources: Neo-Assyrian, Egyptian, Kushite, and Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions and administrative documents, as well as classical historians (Herodotus, Josephus Flavius) and archaeological evidence. I will review the historical setting of the putative reconstructed sources and evaluate whether they are corroborated or contradicted by external evidence and whether their narratives are historical or fictional. Chapters 4: Source BI

The narrative of the Assyrian invasion of Judah in Isa 36–37/2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 describes the utter defeat of the Assyrians through divine intervention. The campaign ends with the defeat of the Assyrians, the return home of Sennacherib, and his murder by his sons.

In Chapter 4, Isaiah’s original message condemned the hubris of the king of Assyria who claimed that he destroyed many kingdoms and no God could stop him since the destruction of all the cities was God’s doing. Furthermore, Isaiah prophesied that although Judah was seriously damaged, it would recover from the disaster within three years. The recovery is not described, and the departure of Sennacherib and his army is not mentioned explicitly. The realization of the prophecy was some time in the future.

The description of Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem in the book of Chronicles is dependent on the version of the Isaiah account (Isa 36–37) but differs considerably from the narratives in 2 Kgs and Isaiah. It is but only one-third of the length of the Isaiah account. On the other hand, the author incorporates new material that does not originate in the Hezekiah–Sennacherib narrative.

The editor of Chronicles drew his information from sources, which were not included in Isaiah or 2 Kings. He added to these his theological perspective. As for the material which resembles the narrative in Isaiah and Kings, the Chronicler used material from the book of Isaiah, and heavily condensed it. Source A is absent; BI is represented only by two verses (Isa 36:19–20); Isaiah’s role (and the role of the other minor actors in the narrative) is greatly diminished. The end of the narrative incorporates information about the defeat of Assyria, the murder of Sennacherib; however, in a completely different phrasing from the BII version. On the other hand, the Chronicler heavily relied on a draft of the BIII version.