15

The present article examines the final part of the regnal formulas in the Book of Kings, i.e. the epilogue formulary. Most reports of the kings of Israel and Judah end with an epilogue containing formulaic statements about the death of the king and his succession. Typically, the epilogue formula is introduced by the phrase (source reference): 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel)?' and consists of three elements: 1. Dynastic notice ('PN1 slept with his fathers'); 2. Statement of burial; 3. Statement of succession. Sometimes one, two or all three of these elements are altered or lacking. The epilogue formulae of the Judean kings are more consistent than those of the Israelite kings; the latter often lacks a burial notice. Interestingly, the accounts of the deported (arrested) kings (Hoshea: 2 Kgs 17:6, Jehoahaz: 23:34, Zedekiah:25:7 and Jehoiachin: 25:27-30) do not contain an epilogue at all, nor the accounts of the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah which mark an episode of disruption in the history of the Davidic kingdom. For all these kings even the phrase 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of... ?' is lacking. The absence of an epilogue in these cases is probably due to the fact that the king's succession (cf. element 3) is considered a constitutive and indispensable component of the epilogue. In the first instance, the approach of this study is descriptive and philological; it aims to contribute to the understanding of the notices. Secondly, the study addresses the question how the irregularities and variations within the formulae are to be explained. In particular, the study will pay attention to differences between the epilogue formulae concerning the kings of Israel and those concerning the Judean kings. At the end, questions concerning the epilogues formula's provenance and its formation date and concerning further redactional developments will be considered.

Cycling Time Trial Is More Altered in Hypobaric than Normobaric Hypoxia

PURPOSE: Slight physiological differences between acute exposure in normobaric hypoxia (NH) and hypobaric hypoxia (HH) have been reported. Taken together, these differences suggest different physiological responses to hypoxic exposure to a simulated altitude (NH) versus a terrestrial altitude (HH). For this purpose, in the present study, we aimed to directly compare the time-trial performance after acute hypoxia exposure (26 h, 3450 min) by the same subjects under three different conditions: NH, HH, and normobaric normoxia (NN). Based on all of the preceding studies examining the differences among these hypoxic conditions, we hypothesized greater performance impairment in HH than in NH. METHODS: The experimental design consisted of three sessions: NN (Sion: FiO2, 20.93), NH (Sion, hypoxic room: FiO2, 13.6%; barometric pressure, 716 mm Hg), and HH (Jungfraujoch: FiO2, 20.93; barometric pressure, 481 mm Hg). The performance was evaluated at the end of each session with a cycle time trial of 250 kJ. RESULTS: The mean time trial duration in NN was significantly shorter than under the two hypoxic conditions (P < 0.001). In addition, the mean duration in NH was significantly shorter than that in HH (P < 0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation during the time trial was significantly lower for HH than for NH (P < 0.05), and it was significantly higher in NN than for the two other sessions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As previously suggested, HH seems to be a more stressful stimulus, and NH and HH should not be used interchangeability when endurance performance is the main objective. The principal factor in this performance difference between hypoxic conditions seemed to be the lower peripheral oxygen saturation in HH at rest, as well as during exercise.

Same Performance Changes after Live High-Train Low in Normobaric vs. Hypobaric Hypoxia.

PURPOSE: We investigated the changes in physiological and performance parameters after a Live High-Train Low (LHTL) altitude camp in normobaric (NH) or hypobaric hypoxia (HH) to reproduce the actual training practices of endurance athletes using a crossover-designed study. METHODS: Well-trained triathletes (n = 16) were split into two groups and completed two 18-day LTHL camps during which they trained at 1100-1200 m and lived at 2250 m (P i O2 = 111.9 ± 0.6 vs. 111.6 ± 0.6 mmHg) under NH (hypoxic chamber; FiO2 18.05 ± 0.03%) or HH (real altitude; barometric pressure 580.2 ± 2.9 mmHg) conditions. The subjects completed the NH and HH camps with a 1-year washout period. Measurements and protocol were identical for both phases of the crossover study. Oxygen saturation (S p O2) was constantly recorded nightly. P i O2 and training loads were matched daily. Blood samples and VO2max were measured before (Pre-) and 1 day after (Post-1) LHTL. A 3-km running-test was performed near sea level before and 1, 7, and 21 days after training camps. RESULTS: Total hypoxic exposure was lower for NH than for HH during LHTL (230 vs. 310 h; P < 0.001). Nocturnal S p O2 was higher in NH than in HH (92.4 ± 1.2 vs. 91.3 ± 1.0%, P < 0.001). VO2max increased to the same extent for NH and HH (4.9 ± 5.6 vs. 3.2 ± 5.1%). No difference was found in hematological parameters. The 3-km run time was significantly faster in both conditions 21 days after LHTL (4.5 ± 5.0 vs. 6.2 ± 6.4% for NH and HH), and no difference between conditions was found at any time. CONCLUSION: Increases in VO2max and performance enhancement were similar between NH and HH conditions.