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.

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.

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.