IntroductionThe writing of the reigns of the kings of Uzziah, Ahaz and Manasseh are examples of contradictory historical documentation. The book of 2 Kings (written by a Deuteronomist historian) is assumed throughout this examination of the texts to have been the source of the writings to which the Chronicler (or the author of Chronicles) would have referred. This comparison will analyze, without exhausting them, the additions, omissions and modifications made by the Chronicler to the original texts and will also attempt to explain why he would have modified the information to adapt it to his specific paradigm. The Reign of Uzziah In comparing the reign of Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:1-7 to the text of 2 Chronicles 26, the first difference one would notice is that there are several minor literary differences in the composition of the text that actually has little meaning for the subject; however, the Chronicler varies his account of events to conform his personal doctrine to that of blessing and judgment. A major change in this specific text is the name used. The Hebrew version uses the name Azariah, while the Chronicler uses Uzziah. The reasoning could perhaps be that Azariah was the king's birth name or first name at the time of his kingship; or it may be a name reserved to distinguish the king from the priest Azariah, who is also mentioned in this and surrounding texts. In the selected texts, the Chronicler adds a lot of information about the kings. While Kings gives only a small account of Uzziah's life, the Chronicler adds details of when and how Uzziah received his blessings and also added the king's evil ways that led to his trouble cutaneous. These additions were necessary to shape Uzziah's years as king... middle of paper ...... repentance and also align with the continuing theme of blessing and judgment. In 2 Chronicles 33:12 it is clearly noted that Manasseh humbled the prayers in 2 Chronicles 33:13 and that Yahweh answered. Conclusion In conclusion, 2 Kings, a king who only permitted sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem was favored and not condemned – no matter his other shortcomings (Hayes, 232). The Deuteronomistic historian knew that this was not playing out exactly as he thought, so he added, omitted, and changed the account of Kings to fit his theology of good equals good and evil equals evil. If a king was good, he was entitled to a long reign and was victorious in battle; if a king was bad, then he had a short reign and could not be victorious. These changes were a recurring theme in the selected texts that solidified the Chronicler's doctrine of blessing and judgment...