Thus tins latter section must be regarded as a later addition to the narrative of Kings (K""; phrases, Nos. 3, 16, 28, 29, 49), referring probably to the Samaritans of jiost- exilic times. V.*''' rounds oil' the interimlation by the repetition of v.*"*, the statement of the older narrative to which the later writer attaches his addition. Vv. '■"••*''• ", on the other hand, form, in part at least, an ancient narrative embodied by K".
Stade (ZATW vi. 167 ft.) ret-ards vt>»«1 as the original kernel which baa received the later extension vv. '■=*-**». Po-wibly this latter uiuy be assigned to RD himself ; v. 32b re'Mintbles I 1211, and in v."* niri Di'rny 'unto thia day," u an ex- pression commonly employed by R*.
II 18'"' is mainly the work of U° {phrases, Nos. 3, 31, 63, 72), based upon the notioos of vv.«-"*-». Yy 7b. « ^rg probably drawn in subsUimo from the ' Annals.' With regard to v.* this is not so clear. The verse shows marks of a late style (perf. willi weak 1, as in 21*-* 'iS"-), and sketclu's the outline of a religious reformation which np^iears in all essentials to have resenililcd and antici|iate<l the reformation of Josiah. Hcijco some critics regard the notice as a lato and unliistorieal interjiolation (cf. Stade, Grsrhirhie, i. G07f., XATW lii. 8tl"., ri. 170 11.; Wellhausen, Comp. 291).
The occurrence of a reformation umler Ilozekiah Is BU]>ported by 18" (which must, with the rejec- tion of I8\ be likewise branded as a later mis- conception), and perhaps also by the statement
of Jer 26"""*, which speaks of the influence exer- cised upon He^ekiah and all .ludah by the preach- ing of Micah the Morashiite. Micah 1'"' Ml' mentions the BdnUJth of Jerusalem for reproba- tion ; but thispassage most not be pressed, because LXX, Pesh., 'Targ. presuppose a ditlerent reading.*
Certainly Isaiah does not appear to have had in view any centralization of J"8 cultus, such as was prominent in Josiah's reformation, but his attacks upon the idol- worship (2»- '«■ »• 31' j cf. lO'"- "), tree -worship (1^), and necromancy (8"), which seem to have been rife in the kingdom of Judah, are in agreement with such a movement in the direction of the pure worship of J". Probably, therefore, as is allowed by Stade (Ges. loc. cit.), the statement of v.*'' is based ujxjn authentic information as to such a reform, and this has been later on expanded in v.**, under the influence of the accomplished fact of Josiah's reformation.
II 18'"" is a notice from the 'Annals,' introduced by the synchronism of R" v.^, and closed by his comment v.". The notice is identical witli 17°" ".
II 18'»-20" = Is36'-39'.t
II 18""", which is not found in Is, is di.slin- guished from IS"-"*- by the form of the name .i;pin yizlfiyyah (instead of I'l.'pm ^izlfiyyahu), which occurs also in 18'- '"(' Annals'). 18'*"'* appears to be in strict agreement with the As.syrian record (Taylor Cylinder, col. iii. ; cf. COT i. p. 286, ii. p. I), and is probably a genuine excerpt from the 'Annals.'
It is generally agreed that the narrative of Is .36'-.39' cannot be traced to Isaiah himself, but must be of a considerably later date. Notice the mention of Sennacherib's death (Is 37*' = 2 K 19"), which did not happen until B.C. 081, twenty years after the campaign against Jerusalem, and cer- tainly later than the death of Isaiali. Again, it seems to be clear that the Isaiah section (except 38'"" from another source) must have been extracted from our Book of Kings by the editor of Is 1-39.
Certain phrases which are due to R^ in the Kings narratit appear also in Is; cf. 'for David my sen-ant's siike ' II lu^ , Is 373* ; * How I have walked before thee in tnith and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight ' II '2)J3 I Is 38*; and tiie redactional phrases 'In those days* II 20' I Is 381, -At that time" II 20l2| Is 39'. Kings is also superior to Is in the account of Hezekiah'e sickness. Is 38*-^ has been abbreviated ; 3831- 23 [a misplaced.
The Kings narrative II 18''- "-20" seems to repre- sent a combination of three sources. Stade [ZA J' I C vi. 174) notices that Isaiah's threat against Sen- nacherib occurs three times in similar terms : 19' jijajb jga 'I'ljg contents of Sennacherib's letter (19"*"") merely repeat in brief that which lia-i already been said by the Kabsliakeh (IS^'"). Again, it is highly improbable that Sennacherib, after tiearing the news with regard to Tirlia|>ali (19''), should have imagined that the mere dis-
Iiatcli of a letter would be likely to compel Ileze- dah's submission, after the failure of previous verbal negotiations. The true sequel to lif" seems to be 19*"- ; upon receiving information of Tir- hakah's hostile movement, Sennacherib raises the siege of Jerusalem and returns to As.syria. We have, then, two separate accounts of the As.syrian campaign, 1 8'»- " - 1 9*- «'• ; H)'"» P.*"" having probablj' l)een slightly modilied by the redactor. Further, the section 19"'"" itself appears to be composite in character. The tnunt song vv.""*', with its accompanying sign vv.*"", stands a|>art
'nHffrj 'sin,' parallel to Vrc Iransgrcssion, as in r.f. Th> rea/ling of MT is, however, accepted by Klttel, who reganU the rendering of the Versions as merely a sinipllOcation (His- tori/, ii. 3r.7).