IntroductionThe writing of the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Ahaz and Manasseh are examples of contrasting historical documentation. In this examination of the texts it is assumed that the book of 2 Kings (written by a Deuteronomistic historian) was the source of the writings to which the Chronicler (or the writer of the Chronicles) would have referred. This comparison will analyze, but not exhaust, the additions, omissions and modifications made by the Chronicler to the original texts and will also attempt to explain why he would have changed the information to fit his specific paradigm. The Kingdom of UzziahWhen comparing the kingdom of Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:1-7 versus the text of 2 Chronicles 26, the first difference you would notice is that there are several small literary differences in the composition of the text that actually have little significance for the topic; however, the Chronicler varies his account of events to conform his personal doctrine to that of blessing and judgment. An important change within this specific text is the name used. The Hebrew version uses the name Azariah, while the Chronicler uses Uzziah. The reasoning could be that Azariah was the king's birth name or his given name at the time of his reign; or it may be a name set aside to distinguish the king from the priest Azariah, who is also mentioned in this and surrounding texts. Within the selected texts, the Chronicler adds much information about Kings. While Kings provides only a brief account of Uzziah's life, the Chronicler adds details about when and how Uzziah received his blessings and also adds the king's wicked ways that consequently led to his skin disease. These additions were necessary to shape Uzziah's years of reign... middle of paper... repentance and also to fit in with the ongoing 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 Yahweh answered. Conclusion In conclusion, 2 Kings, a king who only allowed sacrifice in the temple of Jerusalem was favored and not condemned, regardless of his other shortcomings (Hayes, 232). The Deuteronomistic historian knew that this did not go exactly as he thought, so he added, omitted, and changed the account of the Kings to fit his theology of good equals good and evil equals evil. If a king was good, he was granted 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 throughout the selected texts that consolidated the Chronicler's doctrine of blessing and judgment.