meyers

From: Meyers, Eric M. "The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah." In Ancient Israelite Religion, edited by Patrick Miller, Paul Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, 509-522. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Please note that some of the italicized words are English transliterations of Hebrew words; that the bold hot-link numbers in parenthesis are links to endnotes (click on the number to jump to the endnote page); and the numbers in red brackets refer to the upcoming page number of the article. The latter will help for citation purposes.

The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah[509]     The intention of this chapter is to sketch the broad outlines of the Judean restoration from the reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.), to Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.E.). This period embraces several epochal events in the history of Israel (1). The first of those is the response of the Babylonian exiles to the Edict of Cyrus (538 B.C.E.) that enabled many Judahites to return to their native Palestine, presumably some of them under the governor Sheshbazzar (cf. Ezra 5:14 with Ezra 1:8) but mostly under the governor Zerubbabel (Hag 1:1, 14), in 520 B.C.E. in what is usually called the Second Return to Yehud. This historic move coincided with the reign of Darius I, who upon consolidating his claim to the throne after the death of Cambyses (550-522 B.C.E.) devoted considerable effort to reorganizing the entire empire into satrapies. Such an understanding presupposed a common vision of the empire, and its success depended to a large extent upon the king's ability to implement those views (2).
        The second major event in Yehud that fundamentally affected the course of the Second Temple Judaism was the response of the Jewish leadership to the completely changed social circumstances that governed life in the early postexilic restoration period (3). The dominant response that influenced at least the first generation after the Second Return in the reign of Darius I was a pragmatic and tolerant attitude toward Persian rule in the satrapy of Beyond the River (4). This response is reflected best in the composite prophetic work intended for presentation at the dedication of the Second Temple in 516 or 515 B.C.E., Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. The first generation of civil leadership in Yehud culminated with the governorship of Elnathan (510-ca. 490 B.C.E.), who is associated with or married to Shelomith his 'amah ("maidservant"), Davidic descendant and daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Chron 3:19) (5). In all, it is a period of approximately thirty years in which a high measure of stability is achieved and maintained in the empire by Darius I. It seems reasonable [510] to suppose, despite a popularly held view to the contrary (6), that a similar degree of internal stability was to be found in Yehud as well.
        There must have been an enormous common effort to bring about such a stabilization within Yehud, on the part of both the Persian authorities and the Yehudite leadership. The postexilic economy was not strong, and bad crops and a lazy populace had impeded progress on the rebuilding of the Temple (7). But the success of Haggai's and First Zechariah's ministries was such that this terrible situation was turned around and success achieved in time for the rededication of the Temple. The success of the rebuilding effort was not merely a response to these two prophets, it was also a testimony to the efficiency of the dyarchic rule of Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the civil governor and descendant of the house of David (8). It is quite probable, therefore, that the momentum of those successful years carried over into the next century, and to strengthen and consolidate the governor's claim to civil leadership, Elnathan married into the Davidic family and even assigned Shelomith substantial administrative responsibilities. The fate of the Davidic line after Shelomith is difficult to recover, but the presence of the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chron 3:17-24 indicates that it continues through the fifth century. Whether Zech 12:7-9 refers to a period following Elnathan and Shelomith in which the Davidic line is challenged by elements within Yehud is still a matter too difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty.
        What is clear to all students of the early Persian period, however, is that a high degree of uncertainty is imposed upon the territory of Yehud and the satrapy of Beyond the River immediately following the governorship of Elnathan. Indeed, events in the empire and in the eastern Mediterranean were such that instability and insecurity were very much the order of the day until the strong governorship of Nehemiah (445-433 B.C.E.). The first of these events occurred in the year of Darius's death, 486 B.C.E., when Egypt attempted to break away from the control of the empire. Xerxes I, Darius's successor, in order to suppress the burgeoning revolt had to pass through the coastal territories of Beyond the River. A report in Ezra 4:6 notes that Xerxes received a written accusation directed against the population of Judea and Jerusalem. Although the late J. Morgenstern laid great emphasis on this as a pivotal moment in Jewish history, nothing more is known about this affair (9). What is most significant is that the notice in Ezra coincides with this first sign of Egyptian rebellion. It is possible that Xerxes dealt with the matter en route to Egypt. In any case, Persian control over Egypt was resecured by 483 B.C.E.
        In 482 B.C.E. the Babylonians rebelled and murdered their satrap Zopyrus. The king's brother-in-law, Megabyzus, was sent to crush the rebellion and to inflict severe punishment (10). The Persians removed the [511] estates from the nobles and took them over for their own use. As a result, Beyond the River was separated from Mesopotamia and became an independent administrative unit in that same year. Megabyzus was ultimately appointed satrap sometime prior to 456 B.C.E., and was later involved in another rebellion on the eve of Nehemiah's mission in 445 B.C.E.
        The most serious uprising to affect the relative quiet of Yehud, however, was the Egyptian revolt of 460 B.C.E. (11). On this occasion Egypt enjoyed the support of the Athenian fleet. The new alliance sent shock waves throughout the western provinces and undoubtedly set in motion a series of countermoves in Persia that were designed to prevent the secession of Egypt from the empire and to check the expansion of Athens into the eastern Mediterranean. Persia had had its difficulties with the Greeks when the Greek cities of Asia Minor had broken away from Persian control from 500 to 494 B.C.E. In 490 B.C.E. the Athenians bested the Persians at the Battle of Marathon; Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.E.) unsuccessfully attempted to bring the Greek states under Persian control in the years following (12).
        It is no wonder that Persia by the mid-fifth century was embarked upon an administrative policy vis-a-vis the coastal territories that tended to reverse the more liberal policies implemented by Darius I or even Cyrus the Great earlier. Moreover, Palestine underwent a fairly extensive period of fortification to shore up Persian control of the important lines of communication (13). It is hard to imagine that events and circumstances of such magnitude did not impact greatly on the community in Yehud. Indeed, Ezra's words in the prologue to the reaffirmation of the covenant in the Book of Nehemiah testify to just how greatly conditions had changed since the days when Zerubbabel was governor: "Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves! And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins; they have power over our bodies and over the cattle at their pleasure, and we are in great distress" (Neh 9:36-37). The rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah must also be viewed within the larger context of the tightening of Persian controls in the area and of the building of a series of fortifications along the major arteries linking the coast with the inland territories (14).
        A strong case thus can be made that the political fortunes of Yehud in the restoration era had changed dramatically merely seventy years after the rededication of the Second Temple (515-445 B.C.E.). We have suggested that whatever accommodation with Persian rule was achieved by the high priest Joshua and Zerubbabel the governor, it already began to [512] become unraveled by 485 B.C.E. when the first serious threat of rebellion in Egypt seems to have impinged on Palestinian consciousness.
        It is quite clear that Palestinian feelings had to be placated to a considerable degree during the early restoration period just prior to the successful Temple rebuilding effort that culiminated in 515 B.C.E. More than any other factor, the absence of any realistic opportunity to reinstate the office of kingship necessitated a basic readjustment of attitudes. Both the prophets Haggai and First Zechariah presuppose the hegemony of Persian authorities in all local affairs and never question the appropriateness of the office of governor or high priest (15). The same is true in Ezra. In other words, there seems to be a complete readiness to accept the apparent largesse of a Persian government that had earlier authorized the return of the exiles to their homeland and the rebuilding of their religious sanctuary. Not only did Second Isaiah welcome the period of return about to begin but he assigned to Cyrus, sponsor of the Edict of Return in 538 B.C.E., the ultimate sign of approval, referring to him as "shepherd" and "messiah," Yahweh's special instrument of deliverance (16).
        The internal adjustments that had to be made by the Judahite community in exile and consequently in Yehud were few but very significant. The Persian authority, perhaps recognizing the seriousness of the loss of kingship in Israel, appointed a governor of the royal house of David. Moreover, the Yehudites, recognizing the unique opportunity, reinstituted the title of high priest to designate the chief officer of the Temple hierarchy who was to rule alongside the governor. The prophetic vision of Zechariah 3 best expresses symbolic support of the expanded powers that the high priest came to enjoy in the restoration when Joshua is granted access to the heavenly council (Zech 3:7). A concomitant of a strong high priest was the diminution, at least by First Zechariah, of the role of the Davidic scion, who is relegated to an eschatological status (Zech 3:3; 4:6b-10a; 6:12). The attitude of the prophet is that the Davidic line will be reestablished at a future time of God's choosing, but for the meantime a Davidic governor - possibly groomed for the job in the court of Darius I (17) - was thought to be sufficient evidence of Persian goodwill and Yehudite aspirations.
        It is not surprising, then, that the high priest and not the Davidic governor becomes the principal actor in the drama of Temple refoundation presented in Zechariah 3 and 6:9-15. Yehudite hopes for the restablishment of the monarchy are thrust into an undefined and uncertain future, though a dyarchic pattern of local leadership within the Persian administrative system is reaffirmed in Zech 6:9-15. A certain difference in emphasis on this point may be noted in the books of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Haggai, whose career falls more closely in time to the [513] period of the beginning of Darius's rule, when rebellion and problems of succession plagued him in 522 B.C.E. (18), reflects a more heightened eschatology, especially in his final oracle, Hag 2:20-23. He repeatedly uses Zerubbabel's name and refers to his office as governor. Zechariah, however, utilizes Zerubbabel's name without mention of office and only in the Oracular Insertion (Zech 4:6b-10a) (19).
        In neither book, however, is there any sense that the present order is about to break down. Although Haggai's final oracle is often thought to reflect a renewed sense of Davidic messianism, I believe that it refers to a future time, one not able to be realized in the present or in the immediate future. Indeed, Haggai not only is caught up in the present by encouraging and exhorting his fellow Yehudites to go about their work on the Temple but he utilizes a priestly ruling (Hag 2:10-14) to do so and to elaborate on the moral dimensions of sanctity and defilement. By making reference to an active priesthood in his day and through utilization of a prophetic question and answer Haggai presages a new role for the postexilic prophet, one that is drawn more and more closely to the priesthood (20).
        For First Zechariah, society has already begun to be transformed and revitalized. Progress on the rebuilding of the Temple is so far along that he provides symbolic, prophetic legitimization to the ceremony of refoundation that marked the beginning of the new era (Zech 3:9 and 4:10). He also further elaborates upon the new and expanded powers of the high priest (tech 3:7). Although the construction of a temple without dynastic sponsorship ran counter to centuries of Israelite practice when Davidic leadership was associated with it and counter to the general integration of temple and palace in the political states of the ancient world, Zechariah's visions and oracles provide the necessary religious and symbolic justification for a Yehud with a temple and without a king.
        It is possible that Darius's attempts to have the laws of conquered Persian territories codified manifested itself in First Zechariah in several ways (21). Zechariah's vision of the flying scroll (Zech 5:1-4) no doubt refers to the authoritative Law of the Covenant. His repeated reference to the authority of the words of earlier prophets (e.g., Zech 7:7, 12) and his utilization and assumption of the existence of the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) both reaffirm what is commonly held to be axiomatic in biblical scholarship, namely, that the sixth century is a critical period in the development of the Old Testament canon. Indeed, it is possible that Persian encouragement to codify laws in the provinces could well have been the impetus to combine Zechariah 1-8 with Haggai into a single composite piece that was probably intended for presentation at the rededication ceremony of the Second Temple. Both prophets of the early [514] restoration era then undertook to guide the Yehudite community through one of the most difficult transitions in their history, and the redactor or editor of the composite work Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 organized the two prophetic works as if they were a single literary piece that would serve as a showpiece of the Temple rededication ceremony (22). The new Persian administrative machinery had assured that Yehud's world was to be one fundamentally different from the one in which classical prophecy had emerged, one in which monarchy had played so central a role. Haggai and First Zechariah accept, present, and justify that situation to their fellow Jews.
        The consensus forged in the early years of the restoration assured not only the survival but the vitality of Judaism in the Second Temple period. Indeed, it is the prophets Haggai and First Zechariah who are credited in rabbinic literature with transmitting biblical religion into the hands of the men of the Great Assembly (23). That claim is surely not justified on historical grounds but does give credibility to the significant role they played in history. I am not convinced that the so-called followers of Second Isaiah who articulated an alternative visionary view of the future can be securely dated to this narrowly restricted time frame or that anything in either Haggai or First Zechariah clearly can be related to social contention (24).
        In my opinion, it is still too soon to date all books in the prophetic corpus with precision. I am convinced that Trito-lsaiah (Isaiah 56-66) should be dated to the early Persian period along with Deutero-Zechariah, Malachi, and Joel. I am also convinced that the social circumstances they reflect are vastly changed from the ones presupposed by Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Whether or not any of them or all of them reflect the repercussions of the first serious hints of rebellion in the Persian empire and the changed social circumstances that might have resulted from those developments is simply too difficult to say at this time. It seems useful, however, to examine in some further detail the conditions that led to Nehemiah's mission in 445 B.C.E. with a view toward understanding features common to some of these biblical works. Those elements would include the problem of mixed marriages and the corruption of the priesthood (Mal 2:1-4, 10-16; 1:7-10; 3:8), the future of the Davidic line (Zech 11: 15-16; 12:7-8), a deterioration in the economy of Yehud (Joel I-2; Isa 58:3-4; 59:6, 9-15), and an increasing lack of confidence in prophecy itself (Mal 3:22-24 = RSV 4:4-6; Zech 10:2; 13:2-6) together with a focusing upon a final eschatological day (25) or divine warrior language (26). Though this by no means constitutes an exhaustive list of themes and motifs in the last books of the prophetic corpus, it does suggest the range of social and religious problems [515] that could have surfaced by the second quarter of the fifth century B.C.E.
        Shortly after Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.E.) became king of Persia, the satrapy of Beyond the River was administered by the king's brother-in-law Megabyzus, who was sent by the king to quell the Egyptian rebellion. In this endeavor he enjoyed the full support of the Phoenician fleet. The situation in nearby Cyprus is not quite clear, and despite a struggle between the Greek and the Phoenician cities on the island, Cyprus appears to stay within the Persian empire (27). Upon return to Persia from Egypt, Megabyzus was greatly angered at the harsh policies of the king toward the Egyptian prisoners and returned to his own satrapy of Beyond the River, where he declared a new revolt against the Persian monarch (28). After at least two known major battles the revolt ended and Megabyzus was reconciled to the king (29). He undoubtedly was forced to give up the administration of his satrapy, however.
        These tumultuous events coincide with events reported in Ezra 4:7-23. Although the material in Ezra 3-5 has been incorporated into the canon in a very awkward arrangement - the letter from Shimshei and Rehum to Artaxerxes comes before the report of the recommencement of work on the Temple in the second year of Darius I (Ezra 4:24) - it nonetheless appears to preserve reliable information from this period. The officials of the satrapy of Beyond the River make the following accusation: The Jews who had come up from Persia to Jerusalem are rebuilding that "wicked" and "rebellious" city (Ezra 4:12), a city that had a long history of revolt against the monarchy (Ezra 4:19). Furthermore, the text goes on to say, rebellion and strife had long been rife in the city in which powerful kings had ruled, exercising authority over the whole province of Beyond the River in at least fiscal affairs (Ezra 4:20).
        The question is whether or not this letter of the officials of Beyond the River in Ezra refers to a truly indigenous revolt in the province of Yehud or simply to the aftermath of Megabyzus's brief engagement with Artaxerxes, suggesting perhaps that he had used Jerusalem to support his cause. The consequences of either the Egyptian revolt or the rebellion of Megabyzus in any event are certainly reflected in the vividness of the report in Nehemiah regarding the broken walls of Jerusalem and its burnt gates (Neh 1:3). At the conclusion of the reading of the reply of King Artaxerxes' letter to Rehum and Shimshei a delegation is sent to Jerusalem to halt work on the Jerusalem fortification (Ezra 4:23). What business the Yehudites had in mid-fifth century undertaking such a venture remains a puzzle yet to be answered. Were the Yehudites declaring their intention to follow suit and declare their independence from Persian [516] authority? Was there a kind of messianic uprising in Yehud that evoked a counterresponse from other Jews in the province (Zech 12:7ff)?
        We have suggested above that the mission of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in 445 B.C.E., coming armed with title of governor of the province of Yehud and in the face of opposition from the neighboring governors, may be interpreted as part of a larger Persian effort to fortify the routes to the coastal lands and Egypt (30). The inclusion of Jerusalem and other Judean highland sites in a list of possible Persian military outposts most probably has to do with providing a secondary route south through Palestine in the event that the Greeks might cut off the coastal route. This could well have been a live concern if the Athenians had established a foothold by this time at Dor. If a renewed and vigorous effort at Persian militarization can be documented for the mid-fifth century, then it is not difficult to imagine how many foreigners and mercenaries were required to hold these stations. It is also possible to imagine that the presence of so many foreigners led to a good deal of intermarriage, as it had in times past.
        Most scholars (31) have explained Nehemiah's actions on the basis of having to establish a loyal following in Palestine at a critical juncture in time, a motivation that had always inspired neighbors of Palestine to woo their support. But Nehemiah's activities in Jerusalem are a bit too elaborate for such a theory to suffice. Nehemiah requested a royal subvention not only to rebuild the walls of the city but also to construct the "fortress" (Neh 2:8; cf. 7:2, where Hanani is called "governor of the fortress"). The Hebrew term for "fortress" (bira) is derived from Akkadian birtu and always has a military context; and Nehemiah is accompanied by military personnel (Neh 2:9) who are involved in the rebuilding process (32). In short, it seems more reasonable to assume that Nehemiah's mission is part and parcel of a much larger Persian effort to militarize and fortify the major lanes to the west, with Jerusalem representing a critical point in controlling a secondary route south through the Judean highlands.
        If we have endeavored to use Ezra and Nehemiah to fill in some of the gaps prior to the mission of Nehemiah, what has emerged from this presentation is that Yehud, at least from 460 B.C.E. and possibly as early as 485 B.C.E., was in constant turmoil because of major disturbances in the satrapies of Egypt and Beyond the River. Ezra's mission in 458 B.C.E. was most probably motivated by the Egyptian revolt in 460 B.C.E. By the time Nehemiah is authorized to go to Jerusalem, the Persian empire had apparently been forced to strengthen its direct presence in some of the territories, reversing a policy of self-rule that had marked the beginning of the Second Temple period for Yehud. Although this view seems to contradict that of E. Stern and others who want to place the beginning of limited Yehudite autonomy in the era of Nehemiah, I believe both the biblical sources and the archaeological data suggest an earlier date in the time of Zerubbabel (33).
        It is unfortunate that our prophetic sources for this era are so difficult to date and so obscure in content. The use of chronological headings, which is so characteristic of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, is entirely lacking in Trito-lsaiah, Deutero-Zechariah, Malachi, and Joel. The disappointment, reflected in these works, in the management of the Temple cult no doubt comes about as a result of Persia's increasing dependency on Yehud as an ally or friendly province in times when the western provinces were either in danger of leaving the empire or falling under Greek control. It is not difficult to imagine how the office of high priest, so greatly strengthened in the days of Joshua and Zerubbabel, especially in fiscal affairs, became ever more closely involved in state affairs. By the time Nehemiah comes, however, the office of governor has apparently been strengthened once again. Throughout the entire Persian period one may observe a shifting pattern in the relationship between ecclesiastical and secular control of Yehud. A high point in ecclesiastical rule was certainly the high priesthood of Joshua. The fact that both Ezra and Nehemiah have so much to do with religious affairs suggests that ecclesiastical rule in the first half of the fifth century had not been successful.
        The last of the prophetic writings thus provide indirect testimony to the changing fortunes of the high priesthood and to the profound social upheaval that resulted from tensions in the Persian empire. The difficulties which the Persian empire had to face at this time could well have spawned a renewed, awakening sense of the need for independence in Yehud - as well as an enlivened commitment to the house of David. Despite these forces and despite a strong assimilationist trend which was effected through intermarriage, there were always voices around to caution their fellowmen. It may well be that we will never be able to make complete sense of the seventy years from Zerubbabel to Nehemiah, but in many ways they were as much a crucible as the seventy years from the beginning of exile to the rebuilding of the Temple (Zech 1:12; 7:5).