¹ The term “Deuteronomistic” (Dtr) was first used by Noth, Martin (Überlieferungsge-schichtliche Studien [Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943])Google Scholar to denote the Exilic author of Joshua-Kings and the framework of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomic applies to the legal code and its immediate framing passages in the book of Deuteronomy (Dtn). In this paper, these sigla are modified as follows: Dtr¹ applies to the seventh-century author of the Deuterono-mistic history, while Dtr² designates the Exilic author of the work. This procedure agrees with the recent use of this terminology adopted by Cross, Frank M. (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973] 274 n. 1)Google Scholar. Cf. idem, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Annual of the College of Jewish Studies 3 (Chicago, 1968) 9–24Google Scholar.

² Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland/New York: Meridian Books, 1965) 222Google Scholar.

³ Ibid., 480.

⁴ For an excellent discussion of earlier scholarly views on Deuteronomy, see Wright, G. Ernest, “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 2 (New York/Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1953) 311–537Google Scholar. See also Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (London/New York: Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar as well as Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomy,” IDBSup, for additional bibliography.

⁵ E.g., Rowley, H. H., “Hezekiah's Reform and Rebellion,” BJRL 44 (1961) 395–431Google Scholar; H. B. MacLean, “Hezekiah,” IDB 2. 598–600.

⁶ Cross, Canaanite Myth, 274–89.

⁷ Ibid., 284.

⁸ The use of the term “quasi-prophetic” finds its support in Cross's observation that no specific prophet is named as the source in any of the Deuteronomistic descriptions of Manasseh's sin and Josiah's subsequent rejection (ibid., 286).

⁹ Ibid., 286–87. The only ones concerning either Josiah or Hezekiah which can be placed in the Exilic period are 2 Kgs 22:15–20 and 23:25b-30 (Huldah's prophecy, and the concluding statement of Josiah's reign including the prediction of Judah's fall and the description of Josiah's death, respectively). These passages will play an important role in any comparison of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

¹⁰ Ibid., 287–89.

¹¹ “The Chronicler's Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961) 440–41Google Scholar.

¹² Eissfeldt, Otto, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 540Google Scholar. Also see Frederick L. Moriarty, “The Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah's Reform,” CBQ27 (1965) 401; Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960) 155Google Scholar; and Albright, William Foxwell, From Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1957) 346Google Scholar.

¹³ “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 4–18Google Scholar, esp. 11–14 (= Int 29 [1975] 187–203, esp. 194–98). Cross's work is supported by one of the conclusions reached by Japhet, Sara (“The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 [1968] 330–71)Google Scholar who showed that by the measures of linguistic opposition, use of technical terms, and peculiarities of style, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah could not have been written by the same author. Japhet also held that Ezra-Nehemiah preceded Chronicles, but her evidence is often inconclusive or opposed to this position (e.g., pp. 367 C; 368 D; 370 F).

¹⁴ Old Testament, 531–35. See n. 2 of this paper and Rowley, “Hezekiah's Reform,” 425, n. 1, for a list of those who have doubted the Chronicler's historicity.

¹⁵ II Chronicles (AB 13; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) xxxi–xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ There is virtually universal agreement on the assertion that the Chronicler used the Deuteronomistic history as a source (see, e.g., Lemke, Werner E., “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History,” HTR 58 [1965] 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Freedman, “Chronicler's Purpose,” 436). This agreement is based on his extensive quoting and paralleling of the Deuteronomistic material (see the introductions in Myers, I Chronicles [AB 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965] and II Chronicles, as well as Bendavid, A., Maqbîlôt Bamiqrā’ [Biblical Parallels], [Vol. 2; Jerusalem: Carta, 1965])Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Eissfeldt (Old Testament, 532) states that”… at least so far as Judah was concerned, these Annals (of the kings of Israel and Judah) or the sources upon which they were based were still available to the.Chronicler.”

¹⁸ Freedman, “Chronicler's Purpose,” 438–41.

¹⁹ Cross (“Judean Restoration,” 13) has shown that this support is the fundamental outlook of Chr,. Newsom, James D. (“Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes,” JBL 94 [1975] 201–17Google Scholar, esp. 215–16) has reached similar conclusions.

²⁰ Myers, II Chronicles, xxxii-xxxvii.

²¹ I Chronicles, xxx.

²² “Synoptic Problem,” 350–63, esp. 360–63. See also Cross, “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (1953) 15–26Google Scholar, for further support. For a more extensive treatment of the subject, see Lemke, “Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School, 1964).

²³ JBL 77 (1958) 52–66, esp. p. 62, n. 49 through p. 65.

²⁴ “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.: II. The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found Near Yabneh-Yam,” BASOR 165 (1962) 33–36Google Scholar.

²⁵ “The Military Elite of King David,” VT 13 (1963) 310–20Google Scholar.

²⁶ Alt, (“Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums,” Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel [Munich: Beck, 1959] 2. 250–75Google Scholar, esp. 255–58) holds that “privilege of participation” law (Deut 18:6–8) is indicative of this Deuteronomic assumption. Cf. Deut 12:12, 18–19; 14:27, 29; 16:11, 14; 26:12.

²⁷ For support of this statement, see Myers, I Chronicles, xxv; Rowley, “Hezekiah's Reform.” 404; and esp. Moriarty, “Chronicler's Account,” 401–2. For this view applied to Deuteronomistic materials, see Nicholson, E. W., “Josiah's Reformation and Deuteronomy,” Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions 20 (1963) 82Google Scholar.

²⁸ The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns (AASOR 12; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1930–31) 76–89, esp. 78–79; “The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel,” JBL 51 (1932) 77–106Google Scholar; cf. The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, 3: The Iron Age (AASOR 21–22; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1943) 39–154, esp. 39–45.

²⁹ For Albright's latest opinions on this site, see “Tell Beit Mirsim,” Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. Avi-Yonah, M.; London: Oxford University, 1975) 1. 171–78, esp. 178Google Scholar.

³⁰ For an example of Albright's ongoing influence on the establishment of archaeological periods and pottery typologies in the late monarchic period, see Amiran, Ruth, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Israel: Rutgers University/Peli, 1970) 191–92Google Scholar. The Iron 11 C period and its respective pottery typology stretches from 800–586 B.C.E. in agreement with Albright's conclusions concerning Tell Beit Mirsim. This period is much longer than any other one in the Iron Age. Further, the basic classifications of stratification worked out by Albright in 1932 remained well accepted as of 1975 as the work of Stern, Efrayim (“Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey,” BA 38 [1975] 26–54)Google Scholar has shown.

³¹ “Lachish as Illustrating Bible History,” PEQ (1931) 176–77, 235–36; cf. Stern, “Period of the Monarchy,” 34–35.

³² Tufnell, Olga, Lachish III: The Iron Age (London/New York: Oxford University, 1953) 55–58Google Scholar.

³³ “Some Recent Publications,” BASOR 132 (1953) 46–47Google Scholar; “Recent Progress in Palestinian Archaeology: Samaria-Sebaste III and Hazor I,” BASOR 150 (1958) 21 25Google Scholar.

³⁴ Review of Lachish III: The Iron Age,” VT 5 (1955) 95–105; “Review of Lachish III: The Iron Age,” JNES 14 (1955) 188–89.

³⁵ Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M., Kenyon, Kathleen M., Samaria-Sebaste, 3: The Objects (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1957) 204–8Google Scholar.

³⁶ Holladay (“Of Sherds and Strata,” Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God [eds. Frank M. Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976] 253–93) presented a detailed survey of the ceramic evidence. Concerning Stratum A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim, Holladay noted that most of the published ceramic items corresponded to the materials from Lachish Stratum III, but “some vessels betray eighth-century and even earlier characteristics” (p. 265). He discounted these earlier materials in his discussion of Lachish Stratum 111 (pp. 266–67) where he argued that the pottery was sufficiently different from eighty-century forms to be placed in the early sixth century. To those who remained unconvinced by the ceramic evidence, Holladay recommended what he regarded as conclusive evidence based on an analysis of stamped jar handles by Lance, H. Darrell (“The Royal Stamps and the Kingdom of Josiah,” HTR 64 [1971] 315–32)Google Scholar of Type III lmlk stamps. Holladay's article was completed in the early 1970s before the publication of Yohanan and Miriam Aharoni's reevaluation of the stratigraphy of Judean sites (“The Stratification of Judahite sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E.,” BASOR 224 [1976] 73–90Google Scholar) and before David Ussishkin's reexcavation of Lachish (“The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars,” Tel Aviv 4 [1977] 28–60)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As noted below, these materials counter Holladay's findings concerning the ceramic evidence while the present writer's discussion of the Imlk stamps will address chronological conclusions of Lance and others.

³⁷ “The Campaign of Sennacherib in Judea,” (Hebrew), EI 2 (1953) 171–73Google Scholar.

³⁸ The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 339–42Google Scholar.

³⁹ “The Stratification of Judahite Sites,” 73–90.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 87.

⁴¹ “Destruction of Lachish,” 28–60, esp. 30, 52. See also Ussishkin's more recent “Excavations at Tel Lachish—1973–77,” TA 5 (1978) 1–97Google Scholar. A careful study of the relevant historical sources has been presented by Rainey, Anson Frank (“The Fate of Lachish During the Campaigns of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar,” Lachish V: Investigations at Lachish [ed. Y. Aharoni; Tel Aviv: Gateway, 1975] 47–60Google Scholar, esp. 51–59). His conclusions add support for the stance of Tufnell and now Ussishkin (see below, n. 43).

⁴² It is quite instructive to compare the chart of Judean strata supplied by Y. and M. Aharoni (“Stratification of Judahite Sites,” 73) with similar figures which Stern (“Period of Monarchy,” 34, 37) published less than two years earlier.

⁴³ Ussishkin, , “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions,” BASOR 223 (1976) 3Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ “On Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions Discovered at Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish) II,” PEQ (1941) 91–101; idem, “The Royal Jar Handle Stamps,” BA 12(1949) 73–74Google Scholar. More recently, Classes I and II are simply referred to as “four-winged scarab,” while Class III is often described as the “winged sundisc.” Cf. O. Tufnell, “Seals and Scarabs,” IDBSup 4. 259.

⁴⁵ “Judean Stamps,” Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 20Google Scholar. Cf. Lapp, Paul W., “Late Royal Seals from Judah,” BASOR 158 (1960) 18Google Scholar; Lance, “Royal Stamps,” 329–31; Tushingham, A. D., “A Royal Israelite Seal (?) and the Royal Jar Handle Stamps,” BASOR 201 (1971) 25Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Land of the Bible, 341–44.

⁴⁷ Private letter, 15 August 1977.

⁴⁸ Stern, “Israel at the Close of the Monarchy,” 50 and n. 20.

⁴⁹ Ussishkin, , “The Original Length of the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem,” Levant 8 (1976) 82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ The three accounts will generally be called Dtrˡ's Hezekiah, Chronicles' Hezekiah, and Dtrˡ's Josiah, respectively.

⁵¹ On the basis of the citations already given (see nn. 5–10), Cross has convincingly argued that 2 Kgs 22:15–20; 23:26–30 are Exilic and were written by Dtr².

⁵² E.g., Bendavid, Magbîlôt Bamigrāʾ.

⁵³ Critics will point out that the priestly preoccupation in Chronicles supports the contention that Hezekiah's reform is a product of the Chronicler's imagination. In contrast to this position, Hezekiah's reestablishment of the priesthood would seem to be an obligatory step in any effective religious reform after the destructive and syncretistic reign of Ahaz. Further, reestablishment of the Judean priesthood is not addressed in Dtr's Josiah, a fact which supports the Chronicler's independence of Dtr¹. This independence seems especially defensible when viewed against the backdrop of the previously cited literary evidence of the Chronicler's historicity and the archaeological evidence of Hezekiah's reform.

⁵⁴ See more specific discussion in Section E below.

⁵⁵ Precise statistics concerning the various accounts of the reform and political exploits appear in Section G below.

⁵⁶ Cross ascribes the demise of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:25b-30) to Dtr². See above, n. 9.

⁵⁷ Rowley, “Hezekiah's Reform,” 425, n. 1.

⁵⁸ See 2 Kings 21, and 2 Chronicles 33 for strong agreement on Manasseh's failings.

⁵⁹ A comparison of Dtr^ˡ's accounts of religious accomplishments and transgressions of all the kings of Judah from Rehoboam through Zedekiah reveals that only Josiah receives credit for six general accomplishments (destruction of idols, cult prostitution, ʾšrym, mṣbwt, bmwt and doing right). Interestingly, just two other kings are credited with even four accomplishments: Asa (destruction of idols, cult prostitution, and ʾšrym and doing right) and Hezekiah (destruction of ʾšrym, mṣbwt, and bmwt, and doing right). However, Dtr^ˡ spent only five verses (1 Kgs 15:11–15) in reference to Asa and five verses (2 Kgs 18:3— 7 to which we can add the oblique references of 2 Kgs 18:16,22) describing Hezekiah. This i s minimal when compared to the two chapters (2 Kings 22–23) describing Josiah's religious accomplishments. (I am grateful to the Rev. Thomas Tappan, Delaware, Ohio, for the above quantitative comparison.)

⁶⁰ Rowley, “Hezekiah's Reform,” 425.

⁶¹ Rowley (“Zadok and Nehustan,” JBL 68 [1939] 113–41) argues that Num 21:4–7 is just an afterthought.

⁶² Cross (Canaanite Myth, 209–15) holds that the arguments for a Jebusite origin of Zadok the High Priest are dubious. He points out that the name Zadok (ṣdq) is certainly not exclusively Jebusite (parallel to Melchizedek of Patriarchal times) but a common element in the names of many Semitic peoples and that it is unlikely that a religiously devout Israelite like David would have appointed a Canaanite to the high priesthood simply as a sop to the defeated Jebusites. Further, a genuine, if corrupt, genealogy is supplied by the Chronicler (1 Chr 5:27–41; cf. 6:35–38; 9:11; Ezra 7:1–5 and Neh 11:10) and Cross concludes that it is most likely that David appointe d Zadok because he was the representative of the Hebronite priestly clan which traced its ancestry to Aaron.

Roberts (“The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 [1973] 329–44) gives a point by point refutation of a possible Jebusite origin of the Zion tradition and also of a proposed Exilic origin for it. He argues that its appropriate Sitz im Leben is the Davidic-Solomonic empire.

⁶³ Karen Randolph Joines, “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult,” JBL 87 (1968) 245–56.

⁶⁴ See Canaanite Myth, 195–215, esp. 208, and references throughout the article.

⁶⁵ I am in the debt of Professor J. D. Levenson, Wellesley College, for this suggestion.

⁶⁶ John McKay (Religion in Judah under the Assyrians [SBT 26; 2d series; London: SCM, 1973] 5–12) argues that Ahaz's acceptance of the Assyrian altar and deities was essentially perfunctory and was done more for the political and economic benefits which Ahaz derived than out of genuine devotion to the Assyrian cult. McKay doe s hold that according to the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler as well as Isaiah, Ahaz's great crime was his adoption of Canaanite practices to which the Assyrian altar was only incidental. Even assuming the justice of this argument, Hezekiah's subsequent destruction of the Canaanite forms of worship together with his probable destruction of the Assyrian altar (ibid., 18) and the reestablishment of the worship of YHWH must be seen as acts of political independence as well as religious reform.

⁶⁷ Bright, John, History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 279Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Rowley (“Hezekiah's Reform,” 409–12) argues that Hezekiah ascended the throne at the age of twenty-five in 727 B.C.E., while, on the other hand, McHugh, John (“The Date of Hezekiah's Birth,” VT 14 [1964] 446–53)Google Scholar argues that Hezekiah was born in 731 or 730.

⁶⁹ “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1958) 22–40, 77–100Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ “From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in Light of New Discoveries,” BA 23 (1960) 55Google Scholar.

⁷¹ “Campaigns,” 77–100.

⁷² Ancient Israel (New York/Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 487Google Scholar.

⁷³ The importance of the divergences between the two accounts was originally dramatized for me by an unpublished seminar paper written by S. Dean McBride (“The Reform of Hezekiah,” Harvard University, Old Testament 200, 26 October 1961, 13–15). In a recent private communication (7 November 1977), Professor McBride made the following observation:

I remain convinced too that substantial authentic tradition underlies the Chronicler's account of Hezekiah's reform measures. The most obvious case of this is the unusual Passover-Unleavened Bread celebration; the Chronicler would scarcely have fabricated such an episode in which the festival differs significantly not only from that attributed to Josiah but from the relevant Priestly ordinances and Jewish practice of the Second Temple period.

I express here my deep debt of gratitude for permission to quote from his work. Cf. Haran, Menahem, “The Passover Sacrifice,” Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23; Brill, 1972) 86–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ “Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah,” VT 8 (1958) 48–74Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ “Hezekiah's Reform,” 429.

⁷⁶ For documentation of Josiah's influence on the North, see Cross, Frank M. and Freedman, David Noel, “Josiah's Revolt against Assyria”, JNES 12 (1953) 56–58Google Scholar. The full extent of Josiah's Northern authority now requires additional research in light of the new archaeological discoveries cited above.

⁷⁷ The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper, 1963) 80Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Braun, Roddy L., “A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude toward the North,” JBL 96 (1977) 59–62Google Scholar. It is interesting that Braun seems to assume the historicity of the Chronicler's account.

⁷⁹ See n. 48.

⁸⁰ Hezekiah made an alliance with the perpetual Assyrian enemy, Merodach-Baladan, while Josiah allied himself with Nabopolassar (cf. Cross and Freedman, “Josiah's Revolt,” 56). Merodach-Baladan was forced from Babylon in 702, a year before Sennacherib's invasion of Judah. With Median military support, Nabopolassar did bring down Assyria. Yet, ironically, Josiah was killed in an attempt to stop an Egyptian force under Neco II from relieving the remnants of the already defeated Assyrian army (cf. Bright, History of Israel, 282–83; 314–15; 321–23).

⁸¹ The fall of Samaria was recognized by the Chronicler in Hezekiah's call to the remnants of the Northern Kingdom (2 Chr 30:6).

⁸² Cf. Lohfink, “Deuteronomy,” IDBSup, 230–32.

⁸³ Rowley, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy,” Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950) 164. Also Moriarty, “The Chronicler's Account,” 400. Though much further research is necessary, it seems to this writer that Hezekiah's reform is consistent with Deuteronomy. Thus, it is quite possible that the Book of the Covenant may date from the time of Hezekiah or before. The identification of the time of the finding of the book (ca. 622; 2 Kings 22) with the date of its compilation—a view which has been accepted for so long in scholarly circles—now seems arbitrary indeed.