Exploring the Garden of Uzza 19 interment “in his house” (wtyb). It has also been observed that the negative connotations of az[ ˆg have probably played a part in traditions assigning Jehoiakim’s grave to the κηπω Οζα, “garden of Oza” (4 Kgdms Lucianic 24,6) or Ganoza, “Ganoza” (2 Par 36,8). Whether ideologically shaped or not, it would appear that reference to az[ ˆg is a variable component of ancient traditions concerning the burial places of the Judahite kings. In turning to Josephus’ accounts of the reigns of the kings, it is interesting to notice that reference to the Garden of Uzza is also absent. Rather, Manasseh is said to have been buried “in his own gardens” (Ant X,46), as indeed is another Judahite monarch, Uzziah (Ant IX,227) (71). Josephus’ paralleled portrayals of the burials of Manasseh and Uzziah is suggestive of a tradition in which the resting places of the two kings were closely aligned. This is probably to be related to the claim in 2 Chr 26,23 that upon his death, the diseased Uzziah was buried µyklml rça hrwbqh hdçb wytba µ[, “with his ancestors in the burial field belonging to the kings” (72), a claim contrasting with that found in 2 Kgs 15,5-7, in which it is asserted that he was buried with his ancestors in the City of David. The Chronicler is explicit in associating Uzziah’s burial in a field with the disease afflicting the king during his lifetime, for which he was separated from the royal household (2 Chr 26,21.23; cf. 2 Kgs 15,5). Thus his interment in a burial field is portrayed as an ignominious end to his reign (73), much as burial in the Garden of Uzza is indicative of the condemnation of Manasseh and Amon in 2 Kgs 21,18.26. In view of these observations, it may be tempting to associate the tradition of Uzziah’s field burial in 2 Chr 26,23 with that in which Manasseh and Amon’s mortuary garden is designated the “Garden of Uzza” in 2 Kgs 21,18.26. Whilst this finds some support in the (71) Josephus employs different terms in referring to these gardens: khvpoi" (Ant IX,227) and paradeivsoi" (Ant X,46). This might reflect differing designations for the burial sites in the traditions upon which Josephus drew, as possibly reflected in the biblical use of ˆg for Manasseh’s burial place (2 Kgs 21,18) and hdç for that of Uzziah (2 Chr 26,23). (72) This verse seems to have proved problematic for some of its ancient tradents, for it appears to have been theologically smoothed: the royal burial field is distinguished from the tombs of Uzziah’s predecessors by the omission of any reference to his burial “with his ancestors” (Syr.; Vulg.) and by the apparent addition of a gloss emphasizing that the king was not interred in the royal tombs (Syr.). The tradition of Uzziah’s burial in a field may have generated the claim in 2 Chr 26,10 that he sponsored farms and vineyards because “he loved the soil”. (73) Cf. 2 Kgs 23,6.