In “The Book of Isaiah in the Neo-Assyrian Period,” Michael Chan offers an overview of the centuries of Assyrian dominance in the Levant. He takes five exegetical case studies that demonstrate the historical and literary impact of that Mesopotamian power on Isaiah and his successors in the eighth and seventh centuries bce. In particular, he observes how Assyrian imperial propaganda was subverted by the prophets in various ways.

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.

Chapter 5 describes the rhetorical and theological relationship between the Elijah/Elisha narratives and the greater book of Kings, both the Solomon stories on one hand (1 Kings 1–11) and the episodes dealing with Israel’s and Judah’s political demise on the other (2 Kings 9–25). It argues that Elijah and Elisha become the “hereditary carriers” of two theological concepts introduced through Solomon: the hope that children might surpass their ancestors in life-giving wisdom and that the temple might provide a durable paradigm through which to imagine Yhwh’s ongoing care for Israel’s land and people together. In this sense, Elijah and Elisha “prophetize” the Davidic promise of 2 Samuel 7, showing that Yhwh responds to sin with a power capable of reversing death. The chapter likewise maintains that a series of Davidic kings – Joash, Hezekiah, and Josiah – “re-royalize” the two prophets’ characteristic acts of resurrection and other forms of life preservation as depicted in 1 Kings 17–2 Kings 8. Because Elijah functions as their typological ancestor, these prophet-kings become the seeds through which Israel’s redemption after catastrophe might be imagined.

This chapter has demonstrated that both gods and human kings were frequently portrayed as celebrating their triumphs with feasting, as a further marker of their sovereignty. The portrayals of divine and human victory, far from being mutually exclusive, were typically synonymous. But not every banquet reflected historical victories; some were aspirational, and some of the aspirations failed. The social function of the victory banquet motif in Isa 24–27 was to summon the people of the former Northern Kingdom to unite themselves to Judah in an enlarged Israel. Josiah’s vision failed in this respect; the political narrative he championed never became reality. As discussed in this chapter and the previous one, however, later scribes appear to have wrestled with and partly salvaged its power.

This book presents a new understanding of the composition of Isa 24–27. Originally, these chapters celebrated the crumbling of the Neo-Assyrian empire as an act of divine deliverance and exhorted the former Northern Kingdom to reunite itself with Judah at a moment when that was a plausible choice for the first time in centuries. The withdrawal of Neo-Assyrian forces from the Levant in the 620s would have left the door open for new political ideas, and it would have been quite natural for a Davidic monarch like Josiah to imagine reunifying the kingdoms.

There are multiple indications within the Bible itself that Josiah took an interest in the north; these form a foundation for the argument that Isa 24–27 was an overture by Josiah to inhabitants of the former Israelite kingdom. It has demonstrated the continuing consensus that the basic reports of Josiah’s reforming activities in Bethel were more or less contemporaneous with his reign, which suggests that Judah had increased freedom to operate in the former Northern Kingdom. Yet it has also observed that there is no indication in the Bible or in archaeological findings that Josiah ever conquered or ruled the bulk of the north. He had ambitions, but they went unfulfilled – indeed, they may have cost him his life when Egypt sensed them. From Egypt’s point of view, Judah seems to have been more or less free to inhabit its rocky hill country, but an interest in the more desirable lands farther north or west would not have been well received.