Death Formulae and the Burial Place 253 buried somewhere within the city (42). The LXXL version of 2 Kgs 24,6 emerged at a later stage of the transmission in an effort to harmonize the text of Kings with Jeremiah’s prophecies (22,19; 36,30. The author of the final chapters of the Book of Kings (Dtr2), who lived in the Babylonian exile, was probably aware of the fact that Jehoiakim was not buried with his ancestors in the garden of Uzza, and in view of the obscurity that might have surrounded his burial decided to omit the burial place from the king’s death formula (43). * ** In sum, I restate my conclusions that the kings of Judah in the tenth- eighth centuries BCE were buried in the palace, and that Hezekiah transferred the burial place of the kings of Judah to a new site outside the walls of Jerusalem. I further suggest that burial within the city walls was exceptional, and that the admonitions and possible pressure of the temple priests, who felt that the burial in the palace defiled the adjacent temple, might have influenced Hezekiah’s decision. Provided that this conclusion, admittedly uncertain, is acceptable, it sheds a new light on the religious policy of Hezekiah. According to the Book of Kings, he initiated a cultic reform, similar to the one conducted later by Josiah (2 Kgs 18,4.22). I have already discussed the assumed far-reaching reform conducted by Hezekiah, and concluded that the two references to Hezekiah’s implementation of the reform are deuteronomistic, that the attribution of a Josianic-like reform to Hezekiah is doubtful, and that the note on the removal of the bronze serpent is the authentic element in the text of 2 Kgs 18,4 (44). Hezekiah’s assumed removal of the royal burial place out of the city matches the removal of the bronze serpent from the temple, probably also at the instigation of the same priestly circles. It also fits Hezekiah’s portrayal as a king who put his trust in YHWH in face of the Assyrian campaign and the grave threat to the survival of his kingdom and capital city in 2 Kgs 18–19 (45). The assumed growth of the (42) MONTGOMERY, Books of Kings, 553. Würthwein (Bücher der Könige, 469) also noted that — whether the Lucianic version of 2 Kgs 24,6 is original, or was written in an effort to accommodate the text to Jeremiah’s prophecies — historically the LXXL version is erroneous since Jehoiakim could not have been buried in the garden of Uzza, outside the walls of Jerusalem. (43) It is not clear whether or not the author knew the details concerning Jehoiakim’s burial. For discussion, see GRAY, I & II Kings, 753-754; SEITZ, Theology in Conflict, 116-119. (44) N. NA’AMAN, “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research”, ZAW 107 (1995) 179-195. (45) A parallel to the assumed growing influence of the priests on certain Judahite kings may be found in Assyria in the time of Esarhaddon (680-669) and Assurbanipal (668-631). See B. LANDSBERGER, Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon (MNAW.L 28/6; Amsterdam 1965); S. PARPOLA, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts (AOAT 5/1; Kevelaer – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970); ID., Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices (AOAT 5/2; Kevelaer – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983); ID., Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria X; Helsinki 1993); ID., Assyrian Prophecies (State Archives of Assyria IX; Helsinki 1997); M. NISSINEN, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (State Archives of Assyria Studies VII; Helsinki 1998); S.W. COLE – P. MACHINIST, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (State Archives of Assyria XIII; Helsinki 1998).