offers an entirely different hypothesis as to its origin: “It is easy to understand that the chronicler’s story of Manasseh’s repentance and prayer, and deliverance from captivity must have produced upon the minds of devout Jews a profound impression. The record of his idolatry and of his persecution of the servants of Jehovah had stamped his name with infamy in the annals of Judah. But side by side with his wickedness were commemorated the unusual length of the king’s reign and the quiet peacefulness of his end. The chronicler’s story of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh provided an explanation of a seemingly unintelligible anomaly. Henceforth his name was associated by Jewish tradition not only with the grossest acts of idolatry ever perpetrated by a king of Judah, but also with the most famous instance of Divine forgiveness towards a repentant sinner. What more remarkable example could be found of the long-suffering compassion of the Almighty, and of His readiness to hear and to answer the supplication of a contrite penitent? Nothing would be more natural than for a devout Jew to endeavour to frame in fitting terms the kind of penitential prayer, which, according to the tradition, Manasseh had poured forth when he was in captivity in Babylon. The sentiments embodied in such a form of petition might conceivably be appropriate to those of his countrymen who had fallen into idolatry, and who might yet be reclaimed from the error of their way.”[430] Here again, one feels the strength of the argument; but we cannot help believing that there are reasons which militate against the acceptation of this hypothesis _as a whole_.