178 Serge Frolov spared comments of this kind, but what happens to these dynasties fits in with the general rule. In sum, if there is any merit to Noth’s Deuteronomistic hypothesis (and if this is not the case, perhaps all discussions of “Dtr” or “Deuteronomistic school” should be abandoned as meaningless), the concept of an eternal dynasty founded by David must have been among the central pillars of Dtr’s agenda (12). Admittedly, certain parts of the Former Prophets do not seem to share this agenda, in that they either attack the institution of monarchy as inherently ungodly (e.g., 1 Samuel 8) or portray David as a less-than-model ruler (e.g., 2 Samuel 10-12). However, all these widely scattered, isolated, and self- contained fragments have been increasingly identified in recent scholarship as post- and anti-Deuteronomistic (and to somewhat lesser extent anti-Deuteronomic) interpolations (13). Dealing exclusively with the fate of the last surviving (although not the last reigning) Davidic king, 2 Kgs 25,27-30 obviously bears on the issue of the Davidic promise. Moreover, since the piece concludes the Former Prophets, its evidence may be decisive as far as the lasting validity of this promise is concerned. In the last six decades, the intent of 2 Kgs 25,27-30 has been the subject of massive scholarly scrutiny that divided most exegetes into two camps. One of them sees the fragment as “the final nail into the coffin” of David’s dynasty, while (12) On this point, see especially G. VON RAD, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58; Göttingen 1947) 59-64. Noth believed that Dtr’s political philosophy, shaped by the catastrophe of 586 BCE, must have been predo- minantly anti-monarchic and therefore tried to downplay the discussed tendency, ascribing it to Dtr’s sources (e.g., Studien, 55-57, 64-65, 91-92). In fact, there is no reason to assume that pro-monarchic attitude was impossible in an exilic or post-exilic setting. At the very least, it can be taken for granted that Jehoiachin, his descendants (who, if Zerubbabel’s prominence in Ezra is any indication, retained a degree of influence decades after the exile), and his exiled courtiers (2 Kgs 24,14-16) did not have a negative opinion of the institution. (13) These interpolations may include Judges 19–21 (thus C. EDENBURG, The Story of the Outrage at Gibeah [Judg. 19–21]. Composition, Sources and Historical Context [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Tel Aviv 2003]); 1 Samuel 1–8 (S. FROLOV, The Turn of the Cycle. 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives [BZAW 342; Berlin 2004]); most of 2 Samuel (J. VAN SETERS, In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History [New Haven 1983] 277-291; FROLOV, “Succession Narrative”, 102-103, limits the putative post-Deuteronomistic contribution in this book to chs. 10-12); and prophetic narratives in Kings (VAN SETERS, Search, 303-306; S.L. MCKENZIE, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VTS 42; Leiden 1991] 81-100).