The Political Tensions Reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah

  by Carl Schultz, Ph.D.
Houghton College, Houghton, NY  

Copyright by Pickwick Publications 1980.
Permission Granted October 30, 1997.

The internal situation within Judea, following the return in 539 B.C.E. from the Babylonian captivity, can only be understood as the details surrounding the deportation and the exile itself are considered. While the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. was tragic, it was a watershed, a significant turning point in the history of Israel. The destruction of the temple1 and the termination of the Davidic dynasty had a profound influence on the peoples' thinking, since they had subscribed to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty2 and the invulnerability of Jerusalem.3 The religious faith that emerged from the exilic period and continued to be developed in post-exilic time was determined to a great extent by the collapse of the city, the temple, and the Davidic dynasty.

I. Comparative Assessments of the Fall

That Jerusalem was captured by Nebuchadnezzar in March 597 B.C.E. is now established on the basis of both biblical4 and Babylonian5 evidence. Another ten years, however, transpired before the Babylonians returned and destroyed the city. Zedekiah, appointed king of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, is portrayed by Jeremiah as being unable to cope during these ten intervening years with the internal struggles between the pro-Babylonian and the pro-Egyptian factions within Jerusalem.6 Encouraged by the Egyptians and disregarding Jeremiah's requested advice, Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon.7 Nebuchadnezzar responded quickly, returned with his army, and besieged the city. Jerusalem resisted for some eighteen months, but then capitulated and was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.8

The extent of the devastation associated with this fall of Jerusalem is uncertain. Under debate are both the matters of the geographic extent of the destruction and the numerical proportions of the deportations.

The Chronicler seems to picture this catastrophe of 587 B.C.E. as complete, resulting in either the destruction or the exile of the people so that the land was left empty and desolate for seventy years to "enjoy its sabbaths."9 This, as we shall see later, is to locate the hope and future of the nation with the exiles.

Torrey reacted negatively to this assessment of the Chronicler, maintaining that "the Babylonian exile of the Judaean Hebrews . . . was in reality a small and relatively insignificant affair . . . "10 Such an extreme position can now be dismissed quickly. In addition to the biblical claims,11 the archaeological evidence seems to indicate devastation of such a magnitude that Albright refers to it as a complete destruction of Judah. Not only was Jerusalem destroyed, but many other Judaean cities and important centers were leveled.12

The number of people deported is difficult to determine. Using the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah indicates a three-fold deportation totaling 4,600 persons, 13 while the Book of Kings gives two sets of figures for the first (597 B.C.E.) deportation (10,00014 and 8,00015 persons) but simply makes a very general statement about the second deportation ) 587 B.C.E.)--"rest of the people . . . the captain of the guard carried into exile,"16 while allowing some of the poorest in the land to remain.17

Ackroyd, while acknowledging the above data, concludes that the devastation and depopulation were by no means complete. He contends that there is biblical and archaeological evidence for continuity of existence. Not only were the "poor of the land" left but even the alleged removal of the landed citizens and leaders was at best only partial. Further, those who had fled and hid themselves, returned as indicated by Jeremiah.18 Even though many if not most of the cities had been destroyed this did not prevent a certain measure of reoccupation which would have left little archaeological evidence.19 In short, there was a continuity of existence; there was a community of people left in Judaea which engaged in a great deal of activity.20

If so, however, our information about those who remained is extremely limited.21 Why? The answer seems to be that these people have been totally rejected by God and are of no further historical significance. The issue confronting us then in the Chronicler's account is not simply a matter of historical reconstruction, i.e., how many people remained in the land in contrast to those who were deported and where did these survivors live?--but it is rather a matter of the theological implications of the data, i.e., the importance of the exiles to the post-exilic community and the insignificance, if not the liability, of the survivors who remained in the land. Thus the Chronicler can state that the land was depopulated and left veritably empty.

Not only the Chronicler but also the Deuteronomist is apparently unconcerned with the group who remained behind. He declares that some of the poor of the land were left to be vinedressers and plowmen but Judah (!) was taken into exile out of its land.22 This statement can be taken to convey the impression which the destruction of the state made rather than to give an accurate description of it.23 It is equally possible, however, to regard it as having its basis in the position that those who were deported were the true remnant of Judah while those who remained in the land were of little or no significance.24

It would seem that the dallat ha'a rets did not impress the Deuteronomist relative to their piety or religious knowledge. According to Jeremiah, the dallim "have no sense for they do not know the way of the Lord, the law of their God."25 The future of the nation then was not to be found in those people who remained.

This fact is confirmed in the continuing Deuteronomistic narrative of 2 Kings 25. In five verses (22-26) it gives us the brief history of the community under Gedaliah, his assassination and the flight of the community to Egypt. Our attention is then diverted to the release of Jehoiachin (27-30) and by the same token, to the Babylonian exile.26

In addition to the Chronicler and the Deuteronomist the Prophets also share this negative evaluation of the remnant remaining in the land. In Jeremiah it finds expression in the vision of the two baskets of figs. The bad figs, so bad they could not be eaten, represent those who remain in the land or fled to Egypt. The good figs, very good, are those who are already exiles in Babylon but will be brought back and established. The future of Judah lay with the exiles. 27

The presumption of those who remained in the land, that it would be through them that renewal would result, predicating their claim on the promise given to Abraham, was emphatically rejected by Ezekiel.28 He denounces such a claim and warns of judgment:

This sharp contrast between the exiles and those who remained in the land is also discernable in Isaiah. It is the community in exile that is the personification of Zion and Jerusalem30 with whom is the hope of restoration.31 By contrast the land of Judaea is desolate and waste, perhaps an allusion also to the inhabitants who remained.32

It would appear then that this evaluation of the two groups--the exiles receiving a positive assessment while those remaining in the land receive a negative one--is a common biblical assessment. The Chronicler does not stand alone here. Such an appraisal was predicated upon a belief that renewal and restoration would come by the way of the exiles.

As the book of Ezra opens, the description given by the Chronicler remains--Judaea is a desolate land and she must be repeopled and restored by the returning exiles. It is they who have experienced God's judgment and as such are now open to God's grace upon which a new beginning can be made.33

A tension develops between those who have returned and those who have remained. It is this fact which will concern us in the balance of this paper. We will endeavor to show that this tension was not primarily religious but rather essentially political.

II. The Returnees

An important feature of Ezra-Nehemiah is the lists is contains.34 These lists seem to have both cultic and political purposes. Of particular significance to this paper is the Golah list of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.35

Composition

This list includes laymen, priests, levites, singers, gate keepers, temple servants,36 Solomon's servants, and those without proof of ancestry. It also records various contributions to the temple.

The simple introductory statement of this list is that these were the persons who accompanied Zerubbabel back to Jerusalem. However, it appears to be an amalgamation of lists since some names are oriented by families, other names by localities, and still others by class.37 Galling organizes the list as follows: 2b-20 are family names, 21-33 are place names; 34-35, another family list; 36-37, place names; and 38, the family of Senaah. The lack of order in this arrangement perhaps indicates successive supplements to the list.38 However, the arrangement should not be viewed as haphazard or proof that the sections existed independently.39

Purpose

While several explanations have been given for the purpose of this list, none have been completely satisfactory. Among these explanations are the following:

1. C.C. Torrey: The list is fictitious, a creation of the Chronicler.40

2. W. Rudolph: A genuine list of returnees, composed of different registers covering the period from 539-515 B.C.E.41

3. W.F. Albright: A list compiled by Nehemiah (ca. 440 B.C.E.), hence the revised form of the census of Judah begun at the Restoration. It represents natural increase and the continuing influx of immigrans.42

4. A. Alt: A list compiled by Zerubbabel for the purpose of determining land rights. With some 40,000 people to be repatriated, this question of land rights would be acute.43

5. G. Holscher: A tax list drawn up by the Persians.44 The emphasis upon geographic locations and upon numbers would give some support to this position.45

6. K. Galling: A legitimation list furnished to Tattenai in connection with the investigation of the temple building activities. Behind it looms the controversy between Samaria and Jerusalem. The list made clear the ecclesiastical and legal structure of the Golah community. The people named therein are the members of the amphictyonical qahal, led by the twelve men heading the list.46

This position gains some support from Talmon's research relative to the word yahad which appears in Zerubbabel's answer to those neighboring tribes who had volunteered their service for the building of the temple.47 Talmon shows that this word as used here (and elsewhere) is a noun and is a synonym for qahal. Reading it accordingly, Zerubbabel would have said: "We, the congregation, will build ¼ " Talmon insists that this answer clearly reflects a religious or communal delineation. Only the members of the qahal can assist in the building of the temple.48

While recognizing the religious significance of this list, it seems to me that the political aspect should not be overlooked. In the Hebrew version of the edict to Cyrus,49 the responsibility to build the temple is delegated to a specific group--the exiles.50 In the passage cited above, Zerubbabel so understands the edict for he declares that it is the exiles who will do the building.51

It is clear that there was tension between the Samarian leadership and the returning exiles. Tattenai in his investigation did demand the names of the men involved in the temple building.52. Then in his letter to Darius he stated that the names had been requested for the king's information.53 Further to indicate the care that had been used, some dubious cases were referred to the Persian-appointed governor who made disposition of them.54 These builders were then legitimate.

Comparing this proclamation of Cyrus with the authorization permitting the rebuilding of the Eanna sanctuary, some interesting parallels become apparent. Weisberg calls this Neo-Babylonian text "A Craftsmen's Charter," seeing in it a guarantee of the positive rights of the builders of that sanctuary.55 These builders, while maintaining independence, do so within the framework of the state and have taken a loyalty oath to Cyrus. They are restricted to work only on the sanctuary of Eanna. Weisberg sees this as a means of speeding the work but also as a protection of their rights, giving them a monopoly in the building. Further it would also be a means of preventing the imitation of design.56

Applying this data to the building of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel's actions become more intelligible as do the inquiries of Tattenai. Only those who have been granted the right to build, may do so. The list of names is provided to give the legitimate builders. Further it assures that there a sufficient means and personnel to complete the temple. While independent, the temple builders are nevertheless responsible to the Persian government. Every effort was made then to maintain political legitimacy in building.

Actually the proclamation of Cyrus to the Jews, made in 539 B.C.E., was promulgated four years before his agreement with the artisans of Eanna. Weisberg suggests that the earlier attention to the Jerusalem temple may have been due to Cyrus' policy of securing his outlying defenses. He wished to gain the allegiance of his subjects in those areas first. Only then did he turn his attention to sanctuaries in Mesopotamia.57 Thus we read concerning Cyrus that in: "the region from . . . as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshunna, the towns Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der as well as the regions of the Gutians, I . . . established for me permanent sanctuaries."58

While the Golah list deserves more attention relative to an analysis of persons and places, the above limited treatment relative to its purpose will suffice for this paper. Clearly the builders of a temple had a monopoly, and in the case of the Jerusalem temple it was composed of the returning exiles. No outside assistance was allowed or wanted. Even as in the Craftsmen's Charter, so in the Golah list ancestry is traced, frequently in terms of skill.59 However, it is possible that the trades are not being designated per se, but simply family connections. As Weisberg observes, it is possible for people to bear names that do not necessarily indicate their skills.

III. The Opposition

To understand the internal situation within Judaea following 539 B.C.E., attention must not only be given to those who returned but to the antagonists already in the land. This is true not only of the rebuilding of the temple but also of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah a century later. In Ezra 4 the Chronicler combines these events. It seems to me that the Chronicler is not confused here as some would indicate, but is rather deliberately telescoping the material to emphasize the hostility and the opposition. The events are not the points of significance but the common opposition.

Relative to the rebuilding of the temple, the Chronicler uses the opposition to explain the long interval between its beginning (second month of the second year after the return)60 and its completion some twenty years later (third day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king).61 This picture is exceedingly more complex than that presented in Haggai and Zechariah where the delay in the temple completion is attributed to the lethargy of the people.

According to the Chronicler, the identity of the opponents to the rebuilding of the temple is as follows:

3. am ha'arets72 This term, used some 70 times in the Old Testament, has been variously interpreted.73 The inclination has been to give it a fixed, a technical meaning, but Nicholson has shown that it is a very general term varying in meaning from context to context.74 For instance, as used by Haggai it is parallel to se'erit ha am75 and as such could refer to both those who returned from captivity as well as those who initially escaped the captivity. These groups are urged to persevere in the building of the temple. Hence the term in the Haggai context seems to mean land-owning citizens with full rights.

By contrast, the Chronicler in the Ezra passage uses this term either ethnically to refer to the people of the neighboring country, Samaria, or contemptuously to designate the religious illiterate. These cannot assist in the building of the temple.

Another possibility needs to be considered. If the term designates the rural population76 then we may have here a kind of tension between the urban and rural centers of power.77

Finally, following Ackroyd, the Chronicler may be using this term to designate the ruling groups in Samaria who claim to have accepted the worship of Yahweh but who are in fact engaged in intrigue to prevent the redevelopment of Jerusalem as Sanballat and his associates will be in the following century.78

4. Samarians. Reference here to Samaria necessitates a consideration of the Chronicler's attitude toward Samaria and its inhabitants. That the Chronicler's intention was polemical is most apparent but the identification of those against whom this polemic was addressed is not clear.79

Up to recent times Torrey's conclusion was basically accepted, i.e., that the Chronicler had a twofold purpose to establish beyond all question the supremacy of the mother church and to reject the Samatan claim that they were true Israel.80 Even Rowley, normally critical of Torrey, concludes that the Chronicler betrays an anti-Samaritan bias which cannot be mistaken.81

Ackroyd warns, however, that:

While acknowledging friction between the returnees and their Samaritan neighbors, Cogan observes that the foreign cult of 2 Kings 17 never became an issue for rejection in the Ezra-Nehemiah documents.83 The Chronicler concedes that the Samaritans looked to Yahweh as their God. Further the Samaritans did not present themselves as descendants of the old indigenous Israelite population but rather as foreigners!

Kaufman maintains that even though a kind of paganism had developed in the north, it had disappeared because of the Judaization of the Assyrian deportees' formal cultic practices. They were rejected then not on a religious basis but on an ethnic basis: they were non-Israelites.84

This portion seems to be more in keeping with the Ezra context. If as we suggested above, the Golah list of Ezra 2 and Neh 7 was to give a political as well as religious legitimation to the temple builders, then the strong emphasis upon the foreign background of the opponents would be sufficient to exclude them from assisting in the temple construction which had been made a monopoly of the returning exiles. Hence the issue was not primarily religious but political.

5. Neighboring governors. In this same context, the tension between Nehemiah and the surrounding governors needs to be considered.

Nehemiah came to Jerusalem as governor.85 It is not certain whether he is one of a series of Persian-appointed governors, a line reaching back to Sheshbazzar and Zerubabel or, whether, as Alt claims, there was no final establishment of a governorship in Jerusalem before Nehemiah, Judaea being a part of the province of Samaria.86 (The reference in Malachi to "the governor" is ambiguous and may refer either to the governor in Jerusalem or in Samaria.87) Whether Nehemiah is the first Persian-appointed governor of Judaea or an ad hoc official88 on a special assignment, the tension which developed between him and Sanballat89 is most understandable.

As governor of Samaria, Sanballat is joined by three other provincial governors (Tobiah90 of Ammon, Gasmu of the Qedarite Arabs and perhaps 'Abd of Dedan)91 to oppose the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The reason for their opposition is clearly political. While these governors protest their allegiance to the Persian king, it is quite obvious that they are selfishly motivated. Nehemiah, with his enthusiasm and his poor (!) example of repudiation of the allowance allotted to the governor, was a threat to these surrounding governors.92

It should be noted that Sanballat appears to have been a good Yahwist, giving good Yahwistic names to his sons Delaiah and Shelemiah.93 Further, it is significant that when Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem the second time, he discovers that the son of Joiada the Zadokite high priest and the daughter of Sanballat had been joined in a diplomatic marriage94 uniting the two great families of Judah and Samaria.95 This matter of marriage between the aristocracy of Samaria and the theocratic family of Jerusalem is one indication that the schism which separated the Samaritans finally and irreversibly from their Jewish coreligionists came much later, long after the end of the Persian rule.

Nehemiah's conflict with Tobiah, following his return to Jerusalem, is also pertinent here. Discovering Tobiah entrenched in the temple, sustained by Eliashib the priest, Nehemiah reacted in his own inimitable way and threw Tobiah and his belongings out of the temple.97 Nehemiah considered this another effort to subvert the restoration of Jerusalem. His Persian authorization gave him control over the affairs of the temple. An interesting parallel to this is found in an act of Cambyses in Egypt. Upon complaint that foreigners were settled in the temple of Neith, he gave orders that they should be driven out. The houses and goods of the Greek mercenaries were destroyed and the temple was purified.98

Tobiah, according to Mazar, was a Jew, being the ancestor of the prominent Tobiad family of the Ptolemaic period. This family supported the Jewish Hellenizers, favoring a compromise with the Greek regime. The biblical statements about Tobiah indicate that he was a relative of the high priest99 and that he was a leader of the Jews,100 receiving their support and maintaining their loyalty. He is described as "the Ammonite servant,"101 a term indicating an official of high standing even though Nehemiah uses it to scorn a political opponent.102 Mazar suggests that this phrase means "the servant of the king of Persia in residence at Ammon," concluding that there is basis for the assumption that Tobiah was governor of Ammon.103

While the "land of Tobiads" seems to have been situated in Gilead and not in Ammon, it must be remembered that this area appears as the heritage of Gad in the Bible. The Ammonites attempted repeatedly to occupy the land of Gad104 but is was only after the conquest of the Israelite Trans-Jordan by Tiglath-Pileser III that they succeeded in dominating the southern part of Gilead. Jeremiah notes that the Ammonites occupied part of Gad.105 In the time of Jehoiakim the Ammonites tried to enlarge their territory at the expense of Judah.106 Finally at the time of the destruction of the First Temple there was a considerable Jewish population in that part of Gad so that Ishmael could flee there after slaying Gedaliah.107 Thus the citizens of this area remained Judaean even under the Ammonite occupation in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. though this area was officially in the land of Ammon.

The Tobiads were landowners in this area, being local rulers and enjoying an autonomous state.108 It would seem then that the tension between Nehemiah and Tobiah was not so much ethnic or religious but rather political.

Gasmu was another local governor who opposed Nehemiah.109 While the Edomites had encroached on the southern lands of Judah during the exile,110 they drop from view, following the return, to be replaced by a confederation of Arabian tries led by Gasmu. He seems to have established control over a wide area of North Arabia, displacing Moab and Edom, even perhaps reaching into Egypt. Thus the Qedarite Arabs led by Gasmu replaced Judah's hated southern neighbors. Nehemiah's confrontation by Gasmu should be seen in this light. Gasmu's name has been found on a silver bowl from the temple at Tell al-Maskhuta, twelve miles east of Ismailia in Lower Egypt. The inscription written in the standard Aramaic of the Persian Period reads: "Cain, son of Gasmu, king of Qedar."111

It would seem that Gasmu's loyalty to Persia was not always certain. In the later part of the fifth century along with the king of Egypt, he seems to have had plans to take Phoenicia, necessitating Persian intervention.112

As with the other surrounding governors, Nehemiah's confrontation with Gasmu was predicated on political reasons.

The above evidence seems to indicate that the tension between the returning exiles and their neighbors was primarily political rather than religious. The Chronicler, while pro-Judaean, is not necessarily anti-Samaritan.113 He is clearly anti-Samarian, but this is due to political rather than religious reasons. The religious break between the Judaeans and the Samarians came at a later time. It does not figure in the tensions of Ezra and Nehemiah.

IV. The Leadership

One other dimension which will contribute to our understanding of the political situation is the appointment of governors.

It is not necessary for us to deal with the Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel issue here. It now seems clear that they are two distinct individuals with Sheshbazzar laying the foundation of the temple,114 to be succeeded by Zerubbabel who will resume the delayed building and complete it. We have already noted Weisberg's calculation that the proclamation of Cyrus to the Jews was promulgated four years before his agreement with the artisans of Eanna. The rebuilding of the far-off Judaean temple received immediate attention because Cyrus wished to gain the allegiance of his subjects in those regions first.115 He wished to secure his outlying defenses.

Darius I came to the throne in 522 B.C.E., following an insurrection. Rebellion was rampant in Babylon, Media, Armenia, Sardis, Egypt, and elsewhere.116 In Judaea, messianic hopes were high but there was apparently no political unrest. Nevertheless, an investigation of the temple construction was ordered by the satrap Tattenai.117 After reviewing the records, Darius ordered the continuation of the temple project.118 Again, political self-interest seems to have prevailed. A loyal Judaea is needed.

Following this episode, we have a long period of silence in Ezra-Nehemiah. Whether Ezra is the next figure to arrive on the scene is a much debated point and is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the acceptance of the traditional date (458 B.C.E.)119 gains some support from the political situation. The early years of Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.E.) are filled with unrest. In addition to a revolt by his brother Hystaspes,120 a more serious problem had developed in Palestine and Egypt. It appears that Athens under the leadership of Pericles had established a base at Dor, a coastal city of Palestine below Mt. Carmel, shortly after 469 B.C.E. with the intention of assisting rebellious Egypt against the Persians.121 The biblical text reflects the dangerous situation by having Ezra, who had promised to protect him and the exiles enroute to Jerusalem.122 Ezra's appointment can then be viewed as an effort to provide greater allegiance and security in Jerusalem and to prevent defection to the Athenians.

Nehemiah's appointment in 445 B.C.E. followed this period of unrest. Further, in 448 B.C.E., Megabyzus, the satrap of the province of Beyond the River, had rebelled.123 He was quickly reconciled but obviously there was need for loyalty in Jerusalem.

Clearly the Persians needed a loyal province and a reliable governor in the territory bordering Egypt.

V. Conclusion

Crucial to an understanding of the Chronicler's account of the events and circumstances in Achaemenid Judaea is the recognition of the loyalty agreement between the returning exiles and the Persian government. Recorded actions and events of Ezra-Nehemiah which had been said to reflect the religious bias of the Chronicler can be better understood as reflecting the political situation.

The edict of Cyrus which permitted the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple gave a kind of independence to the returning exiles, granting them a monopoly in that particular construction. They exercised that monopoly, rejecting the proffered assistance. While such a refusal reflects a selfish attitude and a kind of religious separation, it also was in keeping with the terms of the contract. This political dimension must not be over looked. While the builders had a kind of independence they were nevertheless bound by the loyalty agreement, which precluded working in another sanctuary.

The Chronicler's selection of the exiles as the hope of the nation need not simply be a bias but may well have its basis in the agreement between Cyrus and the exiles. To them comes the responsibility of restoring Jerusalem.

It seems quite clear that Cyrus and his successors were not simply magnanimous in their agreements and appointments, but also protective of their own self-interests. They sought to ingratiate themselves with the people of Judaea. As shown above, their gracious acts were frequently exercised in a time of empire crisis. A loyal Judaea, bordering on Egypt, was essential to the Achaemenid Empire.

Copyright by author.

  ENDNOTES

1. Ackroyd observes that the condition of th etemple site remains uncertain. He notes that there is no explicit statement that the altar was destroyed, that worship continued there in the time of Gedaliah, and that the stress of 1 Kings 8 is upon the temple as a place of prayer rather than as a place of sacrifice. He concludes that the temple could not have been thought t have lost its sanctitiy entirely, and that some attempts must have been made at re-use. Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London: SCM, 1968), 25-29.

2. Cf. Nathan's promise to David in 2 Sam 7:4-17.

3. The people's violent reaction to Jeremiah's great temple sermon (chapters 7 and 26) reflects their belief in the invulnerability of the city and its temple.

4. 2 Kgs 24:8-17; 2 Chr 36:9-10.

5. BM 21946 Reverse Lines 11-13: "In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e., besieged) the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit. heart), received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Babylon." D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 73.

6. Cr. Jer 27:1-22. Zedekiah stands in direct contrast to Hezekiah who managed to control similar tensions during the earlier Assyrian crisis.

7. Lachish Ostracon III seems to suggest Egyptian complicity. "It was reported to your servant that the commander of the host, Coniah son of Elnathan, has come down in order to go to Egypt" (ANET, 322).

8. A gap exists here in the Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings so only biblical evidence is available--2 Kings 25:8-12.

9. 2 Chr 36:17-21.

10. Charles Cutler Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1910), 285-287.

11. 2 Kgs 25:9-11; 2 Chr 36:18-19; Jer 52:13-14; Lam 1: 4, 5:18.

12. W. F. Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Pre-Exilic History of Judah," JBL 51 (1936), 102-105. Albright disagrees with R. Kittel who contends that the cities of the Negeb and Shephelah were spared since the list of exiles in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 does not include any names of towns in these areas. The fact that Lachish and Azekah fell to the Babylonians would indicate otherwise. Cf. S. S. Weinberg, "Post Exilic Palestine, An Archaeological Report," Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971), 78-97.

13. Jer 52:28-30. The date and size of the three deportations are as follows:

Perhaps these figures reflect males only, necessitating an enlargement to include women and children.

14. 2 Kgs 24:14.

15. 2 Kgs 24:16

16. 2 Kgs 25:11. There is no reference in 2 Kings to a third deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year as found in Jeremiah 52:30. Josephus (ANT. X, 6:3-7:1) also maintains that there were two deportations of 3,000 and more than 10,000.

17. W.F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 87, 110. Here Albright estimates the population remaining in Judaea as less than 20,000 people.

18. Jer 40:7-12.

19. Ackroyd, Exile, 20-31. Cf. K.M. Kenyon, "Excavations In Jerusalem, 1961," PEQ 94 (1962), 85.

20. Noth maintains that the Babylonian group represented a mere outpost, whereas Palestine was and remained the central arena of Israel's history. Martin Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 296.

21. There are only limited sources in the Old Testament concerning these who remained in the land and apparently no sources at all outside the Bible. This stands in contrast to available information (at best limited) about the exiles in Babylon and Elephantine.

22. 2 Kgs 25:12, 21.

23. Ackroyd, Exile, 29.

24. E.W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (New York: Schocken, 1971), 132.

25. Jer 5:4. This verse has led to the equating of the am ha'arets by rabbinic writers as the religious illiterates. The identity of the am ha'arets will be discussed below.

26. Cf. Jer 40:7-44:30. The community which remained in the land was written off as the possible bearers of the hope of a renewed state.

27. Jer 24:1-10.

28. Ezek 33:23-24.

29. Ezek 33: 27-28.

30. Isa 52:2.

31. Isa 49:6.

32. Isa 43:28; 51:3; 52:9.

33. Nicholson, Preaching, 130.

34. The following personnel and topographical lists are also found in Ezra-Nehemiah:

For an excellent alignment of these lists, see Jacob M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 223-245.

35. Cf. 1 Esdr 5:7-46. This list differs from that in Ezra at many points, both as to name and numbers. The totals are almost identical. The importance of the priestly and levitical genealogies can be seen in the great harmony which exists among Ezra 2, Neh 7, and 1 Esdr 5:7-46.

36. Cf. Bruch Levine, "The Netinim," JBL 82 (1963), 207-212.

37. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, 16.

38. Kurt Galling, "The Gola-List According to Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7," JBL (1951), 152.

39. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, 16.

40. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 250.

41. Wilhelm Rudolph, Esra and Nehemiah (Th bingen: Morh, 1949), 17.

42. W.F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 110.

43. Albrecht Alt, "Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentmus," Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte de Volkes Israel (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1953), II, 316-318.

44. G. Holscher, Die Bh cher Esra und Nehemia (Th bingen: Mohr, 1923), 504.

45. For a discussion of the numbers of this list, see H.L. Allrik, "The Lists of Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 7 and Ezra 2) and The Hebrew Numerical Notation," BASOR 136 (1954), 21-27.

46. Galling, "Gola-List," 153-154.

47. Ezra 4:3.

48. S. Talmon, "The Sectarian yahad - A Biblical Noun," VT 3 (1953), 133-140.

49. For a discussion of the two accounts of Cyrus' edict, one in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic, see E. Bickerman, "The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra I, " JBL 65 (1946), 247-275.

50. Ezra 1:2-4.

51. Ezra 4:3.

52. Ezra 5:3--Tattenai seems to be referred to in a Babylonian document dated June 5, 502 B.C.E.: "Ta-at-t[an-ni] governor (pahat) of Ebirnari." A.T. Olmstead, "Tattenai, Governor of Across the River," JNES 3 (1944), 46. [vs 4:152.]

53. Ezra 5:10.

54. Ezra 2:63.

55. David B. Weisberg, Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid (New Haven: Yale University, 1967), 1-4.

56. Ibid., 37-38.

57. Ibid., 48.

58. ANET, 316.

59. Weisberg, Guild Structure, 103.

60. Ezra 3:8.

61. Ezra 6:15.

62. Ezra 4:1; cf. Ezra 1:5.

63. Ezra 4:2.

64. Ackroyd, Exile, 150-151.

65. Isa 7:8b.

66. ANET, 290, and D. J. Wiseman, "An Esarhaddon Cylinder from Nimrud," Iraq 14 (1952), 54-60.

67. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, 35.

68. Ezra, 4:10.

69. Josephus (ANT. XI, 19) has Shalmaneser here.

70. D.D. Luckenbill, ed., Ancient Records of Babylonia and Assyria (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1927), Vol. II, 326, 340, 346, 351.

71. A. Malamat, "The Historical Background of the Assassination of Amon, King of Judah, IEJ 3 (1953), 26-29.

72. Ezra 4:4.

73. Several definitions of the am ha'arets have been given:

74. E.W. Nicholson, "The Meaning of the Expression am ha'arets in the Old Testament." JSS 10 (1965), 59-66.

75. Hag 2:2.

76. R. Gordis, Sectional Rivalry," 237-259.

77. Cf. City Invincible, eds. Carl H. Kraeling and Robert M. Adams (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960), 79-83; and Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961), 64-70.

78. Ackroyd, Exile, 150-151.

79. R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 68-69.

80. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 153.

81. H.H. Rowley, "The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage, eds. B.W. Anderson and Walter Harrelsom (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 219.

82. Ackroyd, Exile, 152.

83. Morton Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974), 108.

84. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1970), 57-58.

85. Neh 5:14. The term pehah is applied to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14), Zerubbabel (Hag 1:1, 14, 2:2, 21), and the Persian officials (Ezra 5:3, 6, 6:6, 7, 13, 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9, 3:7).

86. Alt, Rolle Samarias, 331.

87. Mal 1:8.

88. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 53.

89. Neh 3:33-4:17.

90. Cf. B. Mazar, "The Tobiads," IEJ 7 (1957), 137-145, 229-238.

91. Frank M. Cross, "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration," JBL 94 (1975), 16-17.

92. Neh 5:14-19.

93. A. Crowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), Texts 30:29 and 31:28, pp. 114, 121. Similar names also appear in Neh 6:10 and 13:13.

94. Neh 13:28-29.

95. Frank M. Cross, "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times," HRT 59 (1966), 202. On the basis of fourth-century papyri from Daliyeh where a Sanballat (II) appears, Cross concludes that the Sanballatids held the governorship of Samaria for several generations and that it is possible that the marriage mentioned by Josephus of a daughter of Sanballat (III) to the son of the high priest is distinct from the similar marriage in Nehemiah. However, he feels that Josephus confuses the biblical Sanballat with Sanballat III, jumping from the fifth to the late fourth century.

96. Cross, ibid., 205.

97. Neh 13:7-9.

98. A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 91.

99. Neh 6:18.

100. 6:17, 19.

101. Neh 2:10, 19.

102. Neh 13:1-13.

103. Mazar, "The Tobiads," 144.

104. Amos 1:13; Zeph 2:8.

105. Jer 49:1-2.

106. 2 Kgs 24:2. Cf. Ezek 25:1-5.

107. Jer 41:1-15.

108. Mazar, "The Tobiads," 144-145.

109. Neh 2:19.

110. Obad 12-14. Alt also notes that Idumea, the Judean hill region south of Beth-zur, was part of Gasmu's realm (Kleine Schriften II, 343-345). Cf. F.M. Cross, "Geshem, the Arabian, Enemy of Nehemiah," BA 18 (1955), 46-47.

111. I. Rabinowith, "Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B.C.E. from a North Arab Shrine in Egypt," JNES 15 (1956), 2.

112. A.F. Rainey, "The Satrapy 'Beyond the River,'" Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1 1969), 64-65.

113. As Coggins indicates, terminology is difficult here. See Samaritans and Jews, 8-9.

114. Ezra 5:14-16.

115. Weisberg, Guild Structure, 48.

116. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 107-113.

117. Ezra 5:3.

118. Ezra 6:1-12.

119. Ezra 7:7.

120. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 290.

121. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 302-304; and Fritz M. Heichelheim, Ezra's Palestine and Periclean Athens," ZRGG 3 1951), 251-253. Cf. J.B. Bury, A History of Greece (London, 1955), 354-355, 357-358.

122. Ezra 8:22.

123. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 312-313. Cf. Rainey, "Satrapy," 64, and Ctesias, Pers. xiii, Epit. 68-70.

 Top

Return to Carl Schultz's Links

 Houghton College Home Page

E-mail to cschultz@houghton.edu