246 Nadav Na’aman others argue that the LXXL version (and the LXX to 2 Chr 36,8) is secondary and was added to avoid clashing with Jer 22,19 and 36,30 (4). As noted, the formula ‘(was buried) with his ancestors’ disappears after the reign of Ahaz, so its proposed sudden re-appearance in the closing formula of Jehoiakim is unlikely. Moreover, Jehoiakim died during the siege of Jerusalem and could not have been buried in the garden of Uzza, outside the city’s wall (see below)(5). Thus the LXXL version is apparently a late addition to the text. Provan and Halpern – Vanderhooft deduced from some changes in the introductory and closing formulae of Hezekiah and his successors that the first edition of the Book of Kings ended with the reign of Hezekiah (6). However, these changes may easily be explained as the result of the short time-span that separates the events from the time when they were recorded. The author of the Book of Kings (Dtr1) wrote his composition in the time of Josiah, and his successor (Dtr2) edited and supplemented his composition in Babylonia (7). These authors worked soon after the events they described and were not dependent on written sources. For this reason they were able to supply details (i.e., birthplace and father’s name) about the mothers of all the kings from Amon to Zedekiah. For the earlier kings, the author (Dtr1) depended on his written sources and his work related the information he was able to extract. Therefore details about the kings’ mothers are given unsystematically. This author also had only general knowledge about the burial place of most of the kings of Judah, and related it with the fixed formula ‘was buried with his ancestors in the city of David’. With the transfer of the burial place to a new site (the garden of Uzza), he omitted the death formula, which no longer fitted anymore the new rulers, who were neither buried with their ancestors nor in the City of David. Thus the omission of the death formula from Hezekiah on reflects the fact of a burial in a new site, and should not be taken as evidence of new authorship. We may conclude that —————— Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt (EHAT IX; Münster 1912) II, 367-368; NELSON, Double Redaction, 86; E. WÜRTHWEIN, Die Bücher der Könige. 1 Kön 17 – 2 Kön 25 (ATD 11,2; Göttingen 1984) 469. (4) J.A. MONTGOMERY, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1951) 553; C.R. SEITZ, Theology in Conflict. Redactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (New York 1989) 106; see M. REHM, Das zweite Buch der Könige. Ein Kommentar (Würzburg 1982) 236; M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Garden City, NY 1988) 307. (5) MONTGOMERY, Books of Kings, 553; see WÜRTHWEIN, Bücher der Könige, 469. (6) PROVAN, Hezekiah, 134-143; HALPERN – VANDERHOOFT, “Editions of Kings”, 179-199. (7) I follow the so-called ‘block model’ first suggested by F.M. Cross and supported by other scholars. For detailed discussion, see F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge 1973) 274-289; NELSON, Double Redaction; R.E. FRIEDMAN, The Exile and Biblical Narrative. The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (Chico 1981); A.D.H. MAYES, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London 1983); COGAN – TADMOR, II Kings; S.L. MCKENZIE, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden 1991); G.N. KNOPPERS, Two Nations Under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies I-II (Atlanta 1993-1994); N. NA’AMAN, The Past that Shapes the Present. The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and After the Downfall (Yeriot; Jerusalem 2002) 43-77 (Hebrew).