This chapter looks at the use of "Israel" terminology and its relationship to eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, focusing on the sectarian scrolls. The chapter argues that the Yaḥad understand the exile as ongoing—even those in the land remain in exile, while the returns of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Second Temple are inadequate or worse. They understand Israel's restoration as contingent on a return to virtue and obedience—which they believe has begun with their own group's divinely initiated return to proper halakhic practices. The Yaḥad therefore present themselves as the vanguard of the restoration of all Israel, which includes the return of the northern tribes remaining in exile and the elimination of the disobedient among their Jewish contemporaries. They represent their separation from their contemporaries as having visibly rejoined the rest of Israel in exile, where their obedience serves as a atonement for the rest of Israel—atonement the Second Temple could not manage—thereby initiating the restoration of all Israel.

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.

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.

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.

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.