Babylonia held a crucial position in a network of overland and naval routes, connecting Arabia, India, and the Graeco-Bactrian empire with the Levant, Syria, and Anatolia via the Fertile Crescent in the west. This network enabled the royal administration to combine the functions of trade and communication with settlement politics, the melioration of agriculture, and the supply of war zones. In this latter role, the Babylonian economy might have played an important part in Seleucid warfare, despite Babylonians never being actively involved in military campaigns. A new Graeco-Babylonian elite with particular demands, the dynamic development of settlements, the network of trade routes, communication, mobility connecting the western parts of the empire in the Aegean with the east, and increased monetization may have provided the conditions for some economic growth in Hellenistic Babylonia. Nevertheless, Babylonia had already been a very productive and economically dynamic region in the Achaemenid period. There were certainly great continuities from the Persian and Seleucid empires, and one may wonder whether the efforts of the early Seleucid kings to improve lines of communication, temple economies, and monetary exchange aimed at regaining the levels of prosperity that had already been achieved before Alexander’s conquests.

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 the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (“Rabbi”), there was a revolution in the relationships between the authorities and the Jews in Palestine. This revolution was linked with the special personality of Rabbi and his way of leadership, as well as the succession of the Severan dynasty to the imperial throne, and Roman policy in the provinces in general in the time of the Severans. After the Severans came the imperial crisis, which left its mark especially on the eastern provinces, which were subjected to such a heavy economic burden that many Jews emigrated to Babylonia, the home of the largest Jewish diaspora community outside the borders of the Roman empire.

In the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (“Rabbi”), there was a revolution in the relationships between the authorities and the Jews in Palestine. This revolution was linked with the special personality of Rabbi and his way of leadership, as well as the succession of the Severan dynasty to the imperial throne, and Roman policy in the provinces in general in the time of the Severans. After the Severans came the imperial crisis, which left its mark especially on the eastern provinces, which were subjected to such a heavy economic burden that many Jews emigrated to Babylonia, the home of the largest Jewish diaspora community outside the borders of the Roman empire.

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 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.

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.

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.

Already in 1886, Stade suggested that the Hezekiah-Isaiah narrative is a composite literary creation. He detected literary seams and suggested a combination of three sources. Source A: A chronistic record (2 Kgs 18:14–16, which is absent in Isaiah). Two further independent traditions about the deliverance from the Assyrian threat have been combined into one story: (a) Source B1: 2 Kgs 18:13, 17–19:9a and (b) Source B2: 2 Kgs 19:9b–37. Most scholars have accepted the identification of two consecutive accounts with an almost similar development of the narrative. Some scholars suggested different reconstructions of the putative sources and distinguish up to six strands spanning for hundreds of years.

Recently, proponents of the synchronic literary approach analysed the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative (Isa 36–37/2 Kgs 18:13–19:37) as a coherent literary composition; some include the putative source A, while others exclude it. They are mainly focused on the message, meaning, devices of writing, and form and structure of the narrative as it stands in its final form.

Isaiah 36–39 was not always a literary unit. Initially, the chapters deal with different historical events. The historical setting of Isa 38 and 39 is in the time of Sargon II (possibly 711 BCE). At some point in time, Isa 36–37 were joined to Isa 38 and 39, which were consequently moved to the end of the unit. This newly created block of stories about Hezekiah and Isaiah was inserted as a self-contained and coherent literary unit in the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 36–39) and the book of Kings (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19).

Previous scholars noticed the differences between the versions of Isa 38, 39 and 2 Kgs 20. Isaiah 38 diverges significantly from 2 Kgs 20:1–11. The differences between Isa 39 and 2 Kgs 20:12–19 are minor. The stages of redaction in these chapters are similar to the stages, which were identified in Isa 36–37. Source BI and Strand BIII, as well as the deuteronomistic redactor of Kings, can be detected. A late redactor added Hezekiah’s prayer in Isa 38:9–20. Verses 21–22 were possibly added to ch. 38 at a later stage by Trito-Isaiah.

The rabbis who made their way to Babylonia joined an ancient Jewish community, descendants of Jews who first came to that land at the time of the biblical exile. In that setting, the Babylonian rabbis enjoyed, along with their brothers and sisters, relative peace and comfort, allowing them to explore and elaborate the traditions they learned from their colleagues to the west. But the inherited rabbinic tradition was only one of the forces that shaped the Babylonian Talmudic tradition. There were also the many historical and cultural factors – the traditions of ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism, eastern Christianity, and others – that contributed to the shape of the local rabbinic tradition. In this chapter we review the historical and cultural factors that shaped Babylon in the centuries during which the Bavli emerged. We examine the growth of this rabbinic community and its relationship with the recognized head of the Babylonian Jewish community, the exilarch. Finally, we trace the trends of study that gave birth to a work that, despite its traditional vocabulary, represents what is arguably a radical new “tradition.”