Evil-Merodach and the Deuteronomist 175 formation (3). Most hypotheses of this kind followed two basic trajectories. The mainly Continental “Göttingen school”, owing its existence to Rudolph Smend and Walter Dietrich, posited three consecutive Deuteronomistic editions of the Former Prophets, at least two of which, “historical” (DtrG or DtrH) and “prophetic” (DtrP), came into being before Jehoiachin’s release (4). The predominantly American “Harvard school”, launched by Frank Moore Cross, postulated a pre-canonical Deuteronomistic edition of the Former Prophets associated with the reign of Josiah (circa 640-609 BCE) (5). The putative period of Deuteronomistic literary activity has been thus extended to include not only most of the exile, but also several pre- exilic decades. Some exegetes went even further by positing a (proto)- Deuteronomistic redactional layer dating from the reign of Hezekiah (late eighth — early seventh centuries BCE) (6). Since approximately 1980, several scholars have pointed out that it would be naïve to derive Dtr’s terminus ante quem from the chronological scope of the Former Prophets. In particular, they argued that he or she could know what happened after Jehoiachin’s release (3) Noth was, of course, aware of these problems but mainly chalked them up to Dtr’s dependence on earlier sources that could contradict each other and/or the Deuteronomistic agenda (see especially Studien, 84). Today this explanation is considered inadequate, if only because even unmistakably Deuteronomistic passages in the Former Prophets sometimes appear to be mutually contradictory and/or ideologically heterogeneous. (4) W. DIETRICH, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Göttingen 1972), building upon R. SMEND, “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte“, Probleme biblischer Theologie (ed. H.W. WOLFF) (München 1971) 494-509 (who isolated only two different redactions). Later Smend placed DtrH soon after 560 BCE and dated the latest, “nomistic” Deuteronomistic edition (DtrN) to the post-exilic period (Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments [Theologische Wissenschaft 1; Stuttgart 1984] 124); Dietrich accepted the latter dating (David, Saul und die Propheten. Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel [BWANT 122; Stuttgart 1987] 152). (5) F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge 1973) 274-289. (6) E.g., H. WEIPPERT, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher”, Bib 53 (1972) 301-339; A. LEMAIRE, “Vers l’histoire de la rédaction des Livres des Rois”, ZAW 98 (1986) 221-232; B. HALPERN – D. S. VANDERHOOFT, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.”, HUCA 62 (1991) 179-244; E. EYNIKEL, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 33; Leiden 1996).