A third redactor, also inspired by Deuteronomy, completed the history up to the exile. Unlike the preceding authors he reworked the whole of the deuteronomistic history.

The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History defends the thesis that 1 and 2 Kings arose in three redactional phases. The first author described the history of Judah and Israel from Solomon to Hezekiah (1 Kgs 3-2 Kgs 20). A second redactor, inspired by Deuteronomy, completed the history up to King Josiah and altered the work of his predecessor. The work of these two redactors was limited to Kings. A third redactor, also inspired by Deuteronomy, completed the history up to the exile. Unlike the preceding authors he reworked the whole of the deuteronomistic history. The first part of this study subjects the regnal formulae to a critical analysis. The second part studies 2 Kgs 23:1-30 as a text case in detecting the redactional structure of Kings.

Lauren Monroe argues that the use of cultic and ritual language in the account of the Judean King Josiah's reforms in 2 Kings 22-23 is key to understanding the history of the text's composition, and illuminates the essential, interrelated processes of textual growth and identity construction in ancient Israel.

Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- The J Narrative -- The DTR1 History -- The P Document -- The Elohist Version -- The DTR2 History -- The Ps Supplement -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Figures -- Index.

The author shows how King Josiah's reform program to unify Israel and Judah around the Jerusalem temple, laid the foundation for the exilic thinkers who rescued Judaism from the obscurity of Babylonian defeat and exile.

This study explores one of the oldest and most central issues of the Hebrew Bible -- the compositional history of 1--2 Kings. Its approach does not proceed from the assumption prevalent since the time of de Wette, namely, that the origins of 1--2 Kings should be explained through a process of Deuteronomistic literary redaction rooted in the Josianic reform. Rather, this study reads 1--2 Kings through the lens of other texts with similar genres existing in its historical context. More precisely, the texts under question belong to the genre of "chronography": kinglists, chronicles, and royal inscriptions, possessing similar or, in some cases, identical structures and motifs to those found in 1--2 Kings. This study includes a literary-critical analysis of every main structural feature of the regnal framework: regnal year totals, synchronisms, geographic filiations, naming the queen mother, source citations, death and burial formulae, regnal evaluations, royal predecessor-formula, and cultic reports. It also seeks to determine the extent of the original framework by mapping its opening and conclusion. The results of the study indicate that the framework's opening was in Solomon's account and its original climax was in Hezekiah's account and represented the latter as a royal YHWHist par excellence excellence, the restorer of order who limited sacrificial space to Jerusalem. The genealogical structure of this Hezekian History emerges from the Davidic royal ideology rooted in Jerusalem. There is no decisive indication that calls for the original framework structure's classification as Deuteronomistic or Josianic. The author of the framework wrote during the early-to-mid seventh century B.C.E. and reported the major historical events surrounding Hezekiah's reign, including the survival of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E. -- in the B1 narrative -- as well as his centralizing reform.

In The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition, Michael Stahl examines the historical and ideological significances of the formulaic title “god of Israel” (’elohe yisra’el) in the Hebrew Bible using critical theory on social power and identity.

This monograph deals with the problem of the text-historical relation between two versions of the Solomon Narrative: the Hebrew version preserved in the Masoretic Text of the book of Kings and the Greek version handed down in the Septuaginta of 3 Regum. Over the years, text critics have taken divergent approaches to this complex issue. This study reviews and evaluates their arguments. It does so on the basis of an independent analysis of the main differences between the two versions. The contents of this book are relevant for everyone interested in the composition and textual history of the book of Kings.