Evil-Merodach and the Deuteronomist 189 calculations above are correct, such a project could be easily accomplished within a year or two. Third, even the interpretation of variations and inconsistencies in the Former Prophets as traces of its development over a relatively long period would not necessarily extend Dtr’s existence over this period, because many of them are attributable to post- and anti-Deutero- nomistic interpolations. Heterogeneity created by the presence of such interpolations obviously does not add a diachronic dimension to the Deuteronomistic literary activity. * ** Of course, as long as there is no definitive evidence to the contrary chances remain that the Deuteronomistic composition underlying the received version of the Former Prophets evolved gradually, perhaps along the double-redaction trajectory of the Harvard school, and that only its conclusion (2 Kgs 25,27-30 or 23,26 – 25,30) plus a few additional fragments date from Evil-Merodach’s reign (42). At the same time, it appears worthwhile to explore the possibility that Jehoiachin’s scribe(s) penned this composition, surveying Israel’s history in its own land and stressing the divinely guaranteed centrality and staying power of the royal house to which he belonged, in 562-560 BCE (43). Indeed, the very concept of an eternal Davidic dynasty may be a by-product of the unexpected, and therefore striking, brightening of Davidides’ prospects under Evil-Merodach. Even if it is not, the fact remains that after 560 BCE no one attempted to update the Former Prophets in accordance with this concept, especially to account for the crash of hopes associated with Jehoiachin as a surviving Davidic king. Although basic components of the Deuteronomistic ideology (strict adherence to the Torah, cultic centralization, and even the Davidic promise, eventually reconceptualized along eschatological lines) have remained in circulation ever since, as a vibrant, (relatively) coherent, (42) The Deuteronomist(s) could also use earlier sources and even include them verbatim in the composition. Skepticism about feasibility of these sources’ retrieval has been on the rise in recent decades, but many exegetes still work in that direction. To avoid going too far afield, I will refrain from further discussion of the issue. (43) The Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic insistence upon centralization of the cult would likewise have served the interests of Jehoiachin and his bureaucracy: back in Judah, concentration of the Israelite worship in Jerusalem would have doubtlessly contributed to their prestige, power, and wealth.