THE PERSIAN EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

A LITERARY STUDY OF IMPERIAL REPRESENTATION IN EZRA-

NEHEMIAH

Paul Byun

Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies The University of Sydney

2020

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract v

Declaration vi

Acknowledgements vii

Abbreviations ix

1. Introduction 1 1.1. Previous Scholarship on Ezra-Nehemiah and Persia 3 1.2. Definitions, Methodology, and Scope 5 1.2.1. Imperial Representation and Ezra-Nehemiah 5 1.2.2. Historiography and Literature 10 1.2.3. Scope of Study 14 1.2.4. Outline of Study 15 1.3. The Persian Kings in Ezra-Nehemiah 16 1.3.1. Cyrus 17 1.3.2. Darius 18 1.3.3. Artaxerxes 20 1.3.4. Summary 22

2. : Narrative Objectives Defined 23 2.1. Expected Fulfilments 23 2.2. Understanding the Objective 26 2.2.1. Attempts to Find a Reference 26 2.2.2. Interpreting the Prophecy from Within 30 2.3. Conclusion and its Relation to the Persian Kings 34

3. Presenting Cyrus 35 3.1. Cyrus in Ezra 1 35 3.1.1. A Large Proclamation to the World 35 3.1.2. Interpreting Cyrus Through an Israelite Lens 38 3.1.3. Summary 41 3.2. Cyrus in –3 42 3.2.1 Disregarding Cyrus 42 3.2.2. Comparing the Present with the Past 51 3.3. Cyrus in 59 3.3.1. King Cyrus, Our Reason 59 3.3.2. Consequences 61 3.3.3. Time Leap 63 3.4. Summary 68

4. Presenting King Darius 70 4.1. Darius in 70 4.1.1. Enter God, and the Prophets 70 4.1.2. Building Through the Authority of God 73 4.1.3. Darius’ Decree 77 4.2. Darius in 81

ii 4.2.1. YHWH Who Changes the King’s Heart 82 4.2.2. Why “The King of Assyria”? 83 4.2.3. The “Book of Moses” 85 4.3. Summary 86

5. Presenting Artaxerxes in Ezra 88 5.1. Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 88 5.1.1. Baseless Charges and a Paranoid King 88 5.1.2. Reversing the Decree of Cyrus 91 5.2. Artaxerxes in 92 5.2.1. Artaxerxes’ True Motivations 93 5.2.2. The Law of the King and the Law of God 97 5.2.3. Artaxerxes the Subsidiary Vessel of YHWH’s Plan 101 5.2.4. Imputed Ideas 102 5.2.5. Ezra’s Identity 104 5.2.6. Excurses: Briefly on The Imperial Authorisation of the Law 111 5.2.7. Summary 113 5.3. Artaxerxes in 114 5.3.1. Divine Protection Over Persian Protection 114 5.3.2. Loanwords and a Brief Third Person Detour 116 5.4. Artaxerxes in 121 5.4.1. Ezra’s Prayer 121 5.4.2. Summary 128 5.5. Summary 128

6. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 130 6.1. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 1 130 6.1.1. Absent King 131 6.1.2. Who is this Mere “Man”? 132 6.1.3. Nehemiah’s Central Concern 132 6.1.4. Summary 135 6.2. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2 (Part I) 136 6.2.1. The Month of Nisan 136 6.2.2. The Lady of Persia 137 6.2.3. Nehemiah’s “Smooth-talk” 139 6.2.4. Good and Evil, and Zoroastrianism 140 6.2.5. The God of Success 144 6.2.6. Summary 146 6.3. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2 (Part II) 146 6.3.1. Where is the King and Where are His Letters? 147 6.3.2. Are you Going Against the King? 148 6.3.3. Summary 150 6.4. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 5–6 151 6.4.1. The King’s Tax 151 6.4.2. Forfeiting State Luxuries 154 6.4.3. King-like Table Setting 155 6.4.4. Nehemiah’s King-like Prayers 158 6.4.5. King Nehemiah? 161 6.4.6. Summary 162 6.5. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 8 163 6.5.1. Nehemiah 8 and Persian Liturgy 163 6.5.2. Appropriating Sukkot: Egypt-like Persia 166 6.5.3. Summary 169 6.6. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 9 170

iii 6.7. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 11 173 6.7.1. Wrong Influence 173 6.7.2. Reversing Wrong Influence 176 6.8. Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 13 179 6.9. Summary 181

7. Non-Chronology and Bilingualism 183 7.1. The Persian King and the Non-Chronological Text 184 7.1.1. Previous Interpretations 184 7.1.2. A Chronological Mistake? 187 7.1.3. The Purposes of Non-Chronology 190 7.1.4. Non-Chronology in Ezra 8 194 7.1.5. Summary 196 7.2. The Persian Kings and the Language Transitions 196 7.2.1. Previous Suggestions 197 7.2.2. Extending the Discussion 201 7.2.3. Ending on a Hebrew Note 204 7.3. Summary 208

8. Partially Fulfilled Objectives 209 8.1. The Return of the People 209 8.2. The Construction of the Temple 210 8.3. The Worship of YHWH 213 8.4. Summary 215

9. Conclusions 216 9.1. The Representations of Cyrus 216 9.2. The Representations of Darius I 217 9.3. The Representations of Artaxerxes I 218 9.4. Other Findings 221 9.5. The Persian Emperor’s New Clothes 222

Bibliography 223

iv ABSTRACT

Are the Persian emperors benefactors or hinderances to the Judeans and their cause? The answer to the question is predicated upon who you ask. This thesis examines how the emperors are represented in the Hebrew , specifically, whether the text of Ezra-Nehemiah represents Cyrus, Darius I, and Artaxerxes I positively or negatively. Although such an investigation has yet to be examined at length, the majority of scholars have either argued or assumed that Ezra-Nehemiah presents the Persian kings favourably. Through a literary based approach, this study reaches a contrary conclusion. The study shows that the Persian kings often hinder the objectives of the narrative and that their conflicting decrees make the process of establishing a community difficult. While the representation of each Persian king is varied, the overall image of the Persian kings in Ezra-Nehemiah is one of dissatisfaction.

v Declaration

This thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other

university or institution.

______

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The experience of writing this dissertation was filled with ups and downs, but it would have been worse if it were not for those supporting me throughout the process. Two sages who had to deal with my indecisiveness and frequent disappearances were my supervisors: Dr. Gili

Kugler and Associate Professor Ian Young. You both have my sincere apology and my deepest gratitude. Gili had to deal with a disagreeable student who changed his methodology as often as he changed his clothes. If it wasn’t for Gili’s persistent demand to “think of the big picture,” and frequent deadlines, “I’ll give you two weeks to write,” this thesis would not have been completed, nor any of my previous publications. Ian had to deal with too many drafts with too many typographical errors. If Ian was paid a dollar for every typo I made, he would not need to work another minute of his life. I cannot thank you both enough for your patience, guidance, and encouragement.

There were times where I felt that I had not two supervisors, but four. I thank both Dr.

Gregory Goswell and Dr. Gareth Wearne for constantly keeping in touch. Gareth for his constant support during our work at Koorong and his later tenure at Australian Catholic

University. Greg for reading the whole draft and giving valuable feedback whilst busily teaching and mentoring at Christ College. Many of the Christ College faculty regularly encouraged and supported me throughout the process: I thank Drs. John McClean, Ian Smith,

Jonathan Pratt, and Murray Smith. I must also thank Christ College Librarian Kate Scott for ordering books and for the various enjoyable conversations between two bibliophiles.

I also thank Rev. Steve Oh, Mike Yoon, and the Sydney Living Hope Community

Church family for constant encouragement and prayer. Large portions of this thesis were completed at an office desk generously offered to me by Steve. Also, to my dearest friends

David Kim, Adam Ch’ng, and Stephen Khoo, thank you for your friendship, laughter, and

vii banter, for reading through various draft papers offering helpful feedback, and always reminding me of the bigger picture in life.

My family members were often a voice of sanity. To my parents Willy Byun and Hunny

Byun, for not only allowing but also encouraging me to pursue the arts and do what I enjoyed.

Thank you for a lifetime of care, support, and love. To my grandma Young Ok Byun, thank you for pocket-money and smiles when I travelled overseas for conferences. To my in-laws

John Back and Jenny Back, for always being supportive.

Finally, to Joyce Back who was my girlfriend, fiancée, and now my wife, who has sacrificed so much to give me time to finish this, thank you for patiently waiting. This very thesis interrupted dates, wedding preparation, and time together, words cannot express how thankful I am and how blessed I feel. “An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels” (Prov 31:10).

viii ABBREVIATIONS

BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, AND ANCIENT TEXTS

A1Pa Inscription of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis A Pers. Aeschylus’ Persians Ach. Aristophanes’ Achaenians Cyr. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia DNa Darius Naqš-e Rustam Inscription A DNb Darius Naqš-e Rustam Inscription B Hist. Herodotus’ Histories Leg. Plato’s Laws MT Masoretic Text

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Emperor walked under his high canopy in the midst of the procession, through the streets of his capital. All the people standing by, and those at the windows, cried out, “Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes! What a magnificent train there is to the mantle; and how gracefully the scarf hangs!” No one would admit these much admired clothes could not be seen because, in doing so, he would have been saying he was either a simpleton or unfit for his job. “But the Emperor has nothing at all on!” said a little child. “Listen to the voice of the child” exclaimed his father. What the child had said was whispered from one to another. “But he has nothing at all on!” Hans Christian Anderson

After defeating the Babylonian Empire, Cyrus the Great ascended to power over the Near East in 539 B.C.E. and a new era dawned upon many parts of the Ancient Near East. The Persian empire differed from its predecessors. While Assyria and Babylon exiled nations, Cyrus

“demonstrated remarkable perspicacity” by granting limited rights for some exiles to return home.1 Cyrus thought his deeds were magnanimous; an act of compassion. He clothed himself with epithets which would legitimate his role as a king from the gods and his capabilities as a successful king. Cyrus was not the only Achaemenid king who dressed himself with extravagant appellations; his successors did the same.

Although the emperor could think very highly of himself, his subjects may beg to differ.

So, what did those subjected under the Persian rule think of their overlords? The answer depends on who you ask and when you ask them. Various Egyptian inscriptions which date within the period of the Persian rule portray the Achaemenid emperors rather optimistically,

1 Kenneth A. Ristau, “The Achaemenid Persian Empire in the West and Persian-Period Yehud,” in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 237.

1 while some Greek portrayals after the Greco-Persian Wars, which led to the eventual defeat of the Persian Empire, often portray Persia and its king in a negative light. Aside from these representations, which come from large nations, this present study is primarily interested in a text produced by small and almost insignificant nation at that time: the text known as Ezra-

Nehemiah.

Ezra-Nehemiah begins its story with Cyrus’ permission for the to return to their homeland (Ezra 1:1–2). The plot thickens thereafter as the community navigate through internal and external obstructions in their journey. Within this tumultuous story, Persian kings are described as having substantial impact on the repatriated community. They are not treated as mere bystanders in the story, but as active participants in the life of the community. The question, however, is whether these kings are depicted positively or negatively. Does the text clothe the Persian kings with colourful epithets, treating them as benevolent rulers ordained by

God? Or does the text portray the kings to lack substance and strip them of their accolades?

This is the primary question the present study seeks to answer.

The text of Ezra-Nehemiah, at face value, Ezra-Nehemiah seems to contain contradictory opinions on the Persian kings. Ezra’s prayer in 7:27 seems to bless YHWH for

Artaxerxes’ decree to legislate Judean law in Jerusalem, but Ezra’s prayer in 9:7 seems to lament that the Judeans are slaves under the oppressive rule of Persia. The general interpretation of Ezra-Nehemiah, however, has believed that the author holds an optimistic or even a positive outlook on the Persian king. Against the general interpretation of Ezra-

Nehemiah, this present study will argue otherwise. Ezra-Nehemiah presents a complex dynamic of authority between the repatriated community’s faithfulness to YHWH and the influence of the Persian kings. Therefore, there are variegated representations for each king; some with more favour than others. However, the overall representation of this dynamic is one of dissatisfaction.

2

1.1. PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ON EZRA-NEHEMIAH AND PERSIA

By many accounts, the -Nehemiah has been understood to be a pro-Persian religious text. Some have argued that the author portrays the Persian rule as an expression of divine approval of the repatriates. 2 Schulte, for instance, understands that the book of

Nehemiah portrays Artaxerxes as an important factor for fulfilling the divine will,3 and Laird has argued that Ezra 5–6 depicts the completion of the temple as a product of Persia’s “good graces.”4 Others have argued that various sections of Ezra-Nehemiah opt for a synergism of power between the divine and the imperial spheres.5 Certain segments, it has been argued, like

Ezra 6:14 seem to find no tension between “the law of the king and the law of YHWH.”6 Becker strongly advocates a positive perception of the Persian rule in Ezra-Nehemiah.7 He argues that the Pre-Chronicler (“vor-chronistischen”) tradition views the Persians as protectors of the

Jewish community, while the Chronicler (“chronistische”) considers the Persian king as an ambassador commissioned by YHWH himself, transforming the previous tyrannical

2 E.g., Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and —Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah, I,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98; Manfred Oeming, “‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehmiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 571–88.

3 Lucas L. Schulte, My Shepherd, Though You Do Not Know Me: The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the Nehemiah Memoir, CBET 78 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 152.

4 Donna Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, AIL 26 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 175.

5 E.g., Alan B. Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udjahorresnet a Collaborator’s Testament,” JEA 68 (1982): 166; David Janzen, Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution, LHBOTS 655 (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 210–11.

6 Tamara C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 77.

7 Uwe Becker, “Die Perser im Esra- und Nehemiabuch,” ZAW 127 (2015): 607–27.

3 Babylonian rule into an era of salvation.8 Japhet has argued that Ezra-Nehemiah reverses the general perception of foreign kings in the HB,

The attitude of biblical narrative towards foreign rulers in the history of Israel is generally to regard them as oppressors and enemies. From a theological perspective, they were seen as the agents of the Lord in executing judgement against his people, his ‘rods.’ Probably following the excited pronouncements of Isaiah regarding Cyrus (Isa 44:28, 45:1–7), the book of Ezra-Nehemiah reverses the common picture as well as extends his view to all Persian kings related to the history of Israel. These rulers were the benefactors, the agents of the Lord in bringing about the people’s salvation.9

Japhet argues that the Persian rulers are portrayed to be “benefactors” and even “agents of the

Lord” for the salvation of the community. Japhet makes a legitimate note on Isaiah’s

and ( עֹר ) ”pronouncement regarding Cyrus; Isa 44:28–45:1 gives Cyrus the titles “shepherd

But the question for us is whether the author of Ezra-Nehemiah sympathises .( ַחישָׁמ ) ”messiah“ with Isaiah’s portrayal of Cyrus.

There have been a few scholars who have differed in opinion. Ackroyd in his seminal work Exile and Restoration showed a level of scepticism regarding Persia’s policies,

The concern of the Persians with this particular area [Jerusalem] may, however, have a further basis in wider political concerns…In the following century the appointment of both Nehemiah and Ezra can be in part explained against the background of political insecurity in the west of the empire.10

8 Becker, “Die Perser im Esra- und Nehemiabuch,” 625–26.

9 Sara Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 315–16.

10 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 141.

4 Goswell has also argued against an overemphasis on Persia’s benevolence by observing a great deal of dissatisfaction concerning the Persian rule in Ezra-Nehemiah.11 Goswell makes his case in three points: the title “the king of Assyria” given to Darius in Ezra 6:22, by all accounts, has negative connotations; the help given by the Persian kings are ultimately unhelpful; the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah indicate a negative attitude towards the Persian kings. Heckl has also found at least one instance where the king of Persia is represented in a “disgraceful light.”12 In

Ezra 4:21–22, Heckl argues that a king (Artaxerxes in this case) who acts only in response to accusations is disgraceful.

As shown above, scholarship on Ezra-Nehemiah has had a tendency to insist that the

Persian rule was viewed optimistically or even positively by the author. The scholarly contributions have either been minor comments on the topic of imperial representation or short articles, and sometimes a positive outlook on Persia in Ezra-Nehemiah is assumed. However, there has yet to be a full monograph-length treatment on this topic. This thesis aims to fill that gap.

1.2. DEFINITIONS, METHODOLOGY, AND SCOPE

1.2.1. Imperial Representation and Ezra-Nehemiah The Persian emperors enjoyed publicising their magnanimous traits and successes to their subjects. At the same time, subjects under the rule of the Persians and later authors also publicised their thoughts on the Achaemenid emperors. This publicising of the emperor’s rule,

11 Gregory Goswell, “The Attitude to the Persians in Ezra-Nehemiah,” TJ 32 (2011): 191–203.

12 Raik Heckl, “The Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah as a Testimony for the Competition Between the Temples in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim in the Early Years of the Seleucid Rule over Judah,” in The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans, ed. Magnar Kartveit and Gary N. Knoppers, Studia Samaritana 10 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 119.

5 including the king’s own self-reflection, can be called imperial representation. The contents of these representations are varied. We have examples of panegyrical discourse, critical discourse, and some discourses that do not fit neatly into one category. This section will introduce the various types of discourses that contain imperial representations of the Persian emperors and how it relates to Ezra-Nehemiah.

The king of the Persian Empire had to interpret his own role and communicate it to his subjects. For obvious reasons, these representations are clear examples of panegyrical discourse. We have evidence of Persian emperors broadcasting their religious convictions, acts of kindness, and successful war campaigns through inscriptions. For example, A1Pa, an inscription found between the Palace of Darius, Palace of Xerxes, Palace of Artaxerxes I, and

Palace G reads,13

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created that heaven, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Artaxerxes king, one king for many, one leader for all. I am Artaxerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far and wide, the son of king Xerxes, the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid. Artaxerxes the great king says: by the grace of Ahuramazda, my father, king Xerxes, built this palace. After that, I built [it]. May Ahuramazda and the gods preserve me, my kingdom, and what I have built.

The intended reach of some Persian panegyrical literature can be observed through the multilingual nature of the inscriptions. For instance, the inscription engraved on the rectangular base of the Statue of Darius I in Susa contains a hieroglyphic inscription and a trilingual cuneiform inscription in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. The purpose of the stone statue is transparent through the trilingual text, “the statue of stone that Darius the king commanded

13 Jonas Lendering, “A1Pa,” 2018, https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal- inscriptions/a1pa/.

6 to be made in Egypt so that those seeing it will know that the Persian Man has taken Egypt.”14

The Egyptian hieroglyphic text is less provocative but panegyrical elements are maintained and even heighted as traditional pharaonic epithets are given to Darius I.

Imperial representations are not limited to writing, however. Artworks can serve to communicate a message from the emperor to his subjects. For example, the Behistun relief contains an engraved drawing of Darius I overlooking ten representatives of the conquered nations. Nine representatives have their necks tied while the tenth representative lies underneath the king’s foot. Above the scene is Ahuramazda approving Darius’ victory. The relief was engraved on a cliff about 100 metres off the ground. This would mean that the text that accompanied the picture would be difficult to read, but the image would remain visible. A similar example can be made of the Naqš-e Rustam relief. In this image, Darius stands on a royal platform blessing and instructing the representatives of the subjected nations all while

Ahuramazda endorses his reign. These representatives are holding up the platform with their fingertips. The relief from Naqš-e Rustam, like the Behistun relief, is accompanied by some text. In a society where the literacy level was low, the pictures may have been more impactful than the words themselves.

Imperial representations are also found among subjects. That is, a society may produce a representation of a king for their own people. Unlike the royal propagandistic inscriptions produced by the emperor himself, imperial representations made by the empire’s subjects vary.

Some can be considered to be panegyrical and others critical. One example of a panegyrical discourse is the inscription engraved on the statue of Udjahorresnet. The naophorous statue of

14 François Vallat, “Les textes cuneiformes de la statue de Darius,” CDAFI 4 (1974): 162–63 (emphasis mine).

7 Udjahorresnet was set up in the temple of Neïth at Saïs during the reign of Darius I,15 and asserts the pharaonic status of Darius I in a number of ways:16 he receives the titular “king of

Upper and Lower Egypt,” “Majesty,” and “the Great Ruler” (1.43). Udjahorresnet ultimately attempts to portray himself as a loyal and patriotic Egyptian serving the newly appointed

“Pharaohs” rather than a renegade conspiring with foreigners. 17 Therefore, within the apologetic dimension of the Udjahorresnet Statue, the inscription presents Darius I favourably.

While this inscription is chiefly produced by a subject of Persia (Udjahorresnet) to other subjects (the Egyptians), it nonetheless is rife with Persian influence. We cannot overlook the fact that publishing an inscription which opposes the Persian king in a public sphere would be near impossible. Those who ally themselves with the empire could report such a matter to the king. Thus, in the cases where an inscription is made public, the imperial representation made by the author has essentially two recipients: primarily, the subjected group; secondarily, the emperor himself.

Imperial representations are not all positive, however. In Morgan’s analysis of Greek perspectives on the , she observes that,

In the period after the Graeco-Persian Wars, Achaemenid Iranians were presented as cruel despots who sought to enslave the freedom-loving Greeks, only to be defeated by them and to be mocked afterwards for their failure. Greek histories, dramas and philosophical tracts described the Achaemenids as wealthy, hubristic barbarians whose lifestyles were luxurious and decadent, whose wives were cruel and dominating and whose every whim was served by their eunuch courtiers.18

15 Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udjahorresnet a Collaborator’s Testament,” 166.

16 Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udjahorresnet a Collaborator’s Testament,” 174.

17 See, Schulte, My Shepherd, Though You Do Not Know Me, 87.

18 Janett Morgan, Greek Perspectives on the Achaemenid Empire: Persia through the Looking Glass (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 3.Morgan points to Greek works such as, Aesch. Pers. 532–35; Ar. Ach. 111–22; Pl. Leg. 637E; Hdt. 9.111.

8

One key component of critical discourse on an emperor is made in Morgan’s analysis: negative perspectives surfaced and developed “in the period after the Graeco-Persian Wars…” It seems like when Persia’s power began to decline, critical discourse began to increase. Critical discourses usually manifest after the emperor’s death.19 This is not to say, however, that panegyrical and critical discourses are confined to certain periods of time (i.e., during and after the reign of an emperor). Some studies in imperial representation during the Roman emperors

Nero and Domitian have argued that Seneca, Siculus, Statius, and Martial’s writings contain irony beneath the surface praise; a critique that cannot be easily detected. This theory has been called “double speak,”20 or “safe criticism.”21 This can be certainly possible of representations from the Persian Period and not long after the Persian rule. Thus, “double speak” or “safe criticism” can be certainly possible for the author of Ezra-Nehemiah when writing about the

Persian kings.

It would not be wrong to say that imperial representation of the Persian Empire is pervasive. The above-mentioned examples of panegyrical and critical discourses are only a few of the many discourses found concerning the Achaemenid kings. The question before us is whether Ezra-Nehemiah can be considered to be a panegyrical or critical discourse.

19 This is certainly observable in Greek representations of the Persian kings. One clear example of critical discourse is Ctesias’ Persian History. Darius, in Ctesias’ writings, is portrayed as a cowardice king: Darius is the first to run from a losing battle against the Scythians, leaving behind 80,000 soliders (12:21), and his rise to the throne is depicted to be a result of “some scheme or trick” (12:17).

20 Shadi Bartsch, Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 98–147.

21 Frederick Ahl, “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome,” AJP 105 (1984): 174–208.

9 1.2.2. Historiography and Literature 1.2.2.1. Reading Ezra-Nehemiah as Historiography

Shepherd and Wright describe Ezra-Nehemiah as “Theological Historiography.” 22 They correctly note that the author clearly demonstrates historiographical interests.23 Yet, at the same time, recognition of God’s involvement in history by the author of Ezra-Nehemiah shows clear theological interests.24 For the biblical historian, there is no history outside of YHWH; the primary cause of the world’s history is God. This is the biblical writer’s presupposition.

However, if we accept the proposition that all historians—religious, semi-religious, and non- religious—have presuppositions, then there is some difficulty in calling Ezra-Nehemiah a

“theological historiography.” By this principle, every historiographical work that we have knowledge of must be attributed with modifiers that accurately describes the author’s presupposition(s) and interest(s). To properly describe Ezra-Nehemiah, then, would be something like: Post-exilic, theological, restorative, Jewish, biblical, and as it has been recently called archival historiography.25 This description, I believe, is unnecessary and proceeds from a narrow definition of historiography.

22 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, THOTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 1.

23 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 6.

24 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 6.

25 Hasler’s recent work has noticed the archival form of Ezra-Nehemiah. In the words of Hasler, “the literary structure of Ezra-Nehemiah is archival in nature. At its most basic level, then, the archival historiography that Ezra-Nehemiah demonstrates is a mode of composing history in which cited documents frequently intervene in narratives.” (Laura C. Hasler, Archival Historiography in Jewish Antiquity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 2). I am in general agreement with Hasler’s assessment. Ezra-Nehemiah, in several instances, changes literary genre. For example, the narrative in Ezra 1 abruptly shifts into a list of returnees in Ezra 2. Nonetheless, “archival” is an adjective like “post-exilic” for historiography. It is a helpful category but does not reduce the historiographical nature of Ezra-Nehemiah. 10 This present study accepts Rachelle Gilmour’s definition of historiography as a

“representation of the past” due to its broad definition.26 This does not suppose that the author resolves all inconsistencies, but instead supposes that the author has created some orderly account of the past. Moreover, “representation of the past” does not suggest that the author or redactor attempts to find the “objective” historical truth.27 The genre of historiography is determined by truth claims rather than truth values.28 In Van Seters’ influential monograph, In

Search of History, historiography is defined as “the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.”29 Having studied history writing in early Greek and

Israelite historiographies, Van Seters’ offers five distinctive criteria:30

1. History writing is a specific form of tradition in its own right. Any explanation of the genre as merely the accidental accumulation of traditional material is inadequate. 2. History writing is not primarily the accurate reporting of past events. It also considers the reason for recalling the past and the significance given to past events.

26 Rachelle Gilmour, Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel, VTSup 143 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 9.

27 While historiography has been defined in the past as an “objective” account of what “really” happened, the present study does not find such a definition acceptable. The idea that historiography should convey the objective past finds its roots in positivism. In this perspective, history was thought to be another form of science in which unbiased scientific methods could be applied to access the objective truth of the past. Many have found this perspective wanting. Lowenthal has argued that the immensity of the past, the distinction between past events and the accounts of those events, and the inevitability of bias, are factors that limit our knowledge of the past (David Lowenthal. The Past Is a Foreign Country [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985], 127–38). Therefore, producing a single objective account of the past is not possible for subjective human beings.

28 Sternberg writes, “bad historiography does not yet make fiction.” (Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, ISBL [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], 25).

29 John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 89.

30 Seters, In Search of History, 4–5.

11 3. History writing examines the causes of present conditions and circumstances. In antiquity these causes are primarily moral—who is responsible for a certain state of affairs? 4. History writing is national or corporate in character. Therefore, merely reporting the deeds of the king may be only biographical unless these are viewed as part of the national history. 5. History writing is part of the literary tradition and plays a significant role in the corporate tradition of the people.

The book of Ezra-Nehemiah checks each of the five criteria: (1) Ezra-Nehemiah is a form of tradition is its own right; (2) while it is not clear, we can make the case that historical accuracy is not the primary aim of Ezra-Nehemiah; (3) Ezra-Nehemiah, undoubtedly, examines the causes of present conditions and circumstances;31 (4) it is plain that Ezra-Nehemiah is national in character. There is no focus outside of Israel; (5) Ezra-Nehemiah has played, and continues to play, a significant role in the corporate tradition of the Jewish people. Therefore, building on the above-mentioned criteria and definitions, Ezra-Nehemiah may be described as historiography without qualification.32

1.2.2.2. Analysing Ezra-Nehemiah as Literature

As a work of historiography, the text of Ezra-Nehemiah uses literary devices and has literary characteristics. It was written to create a persuasive narrative commenting on various issues.

For this reason, we have to analyse Ezra-Nehemiah as literature, as an artfully produced text that involves the arrangement of narrated events, divine and logical connections such as

31 E.g., Ezra 9 and Neh 10.

32 Japhet considers Ezra-Nehemiah to be “historiography” (Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 330) and Cohen considers at least the Nehemiah Memoir to be “historiography” (Margaret Cohen, “Leave Nehemiah Alone: Nehemiah’s ‘Tales’ and Fifth-Century BCE Historiography,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008], 56–74).

12 causation, and explicit and implicit characterization.33 For this reason, Ezra-Nehemiah as a work of historiography can be studied with the tools of narratology, literary theory, and rhetoric.

Therefore, the author’s preservation of peculiarities of language (Hebrew to Aramaic), style, content, chronological structure, and more, can be and will be analysed as narratological, literary, and rhetorical methods for persuasion.

The book of Ezra-Nehemiah has been studied using a “literary approach.”34 Tamara

Eskenazi’s work In an Age of Prose rekindled a literary approach to the book.35 Eskenazi’s monograph identified literary devices (e.g., characterisation, parallelism, contrast, chiasm, and

33 See, Verena Schulz, Deconstructing Imperial Representation: Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius on Nero and Domitian, Mnemosyne 427 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 48.

34 Pioneers of this approach are: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981); Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999); Shimeon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, JSOTSup 70 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989); J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975); David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, JSOTSup 14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). Meir Sternberg is distinct due to his disagreement with the term “literary approach.” Sternberg writes, “To begin with, the very phrase ‘literary approach’ is rather meaningless in view of the diversity of the languages of criticism throughout history, and ‘the literary approach,’ with its monolithic ring, is downright misleading” (Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 3).

35 Tamara C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). One particular study which was influenced by Eskenazi’s approach is Michael Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). I say “rekindled” because Eskenazi was not the pioneer of a synchronic approach to Ezra-Nehemiah but rather revitalised it. Earlier commentators who took on a synchronic methodology or had some interest in a synchronic reading include: C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Repr., Library of Biblical Studies (New York: Ktav, 1970); Idem, The Compositional and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, BZAW 2 (Gießen: Rickers’sche Buchhandlung, 1896); S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987), 357–64; Idem, “Esra-Nehemia: Historiographie Oder Theologie?,” in Ernten, Was Man Sät: Festschrift Für Klaus Koch Zu Seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rösel (Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neurkirchener, 1991), 329–56; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), esp. 624–38; S. Japhet, “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 189–216; Sara Japhet, “‘History’ and ‘Literature’ on the Persian Period; The Restoration of the Temple,” in Ah, Assyria, ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph’al, ScrHier 33 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991); Idem, “Shesbazzar and Zerubbabel - Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW, 94 (1982): 66–98; Harm Van Grol, “Ezra 7,1-10: Een Literair-Stilistische Analyse,” Bijdragen, 51 (1990): 21–37.

13 juxtaposition) and outlined a number of unifying themes that can be traced throughout Ezra-

Nehemiah. In a similar way, this thesis will analysis the literary devices in Ezra-Nehemiah that affect the imperial representation of the Persian kings. However, this study will look beyond identifying the themes of Ezra-Nehemiah and analyse how various themes affect the representation of the Persian kings.

One potential weakness in adopting a literary approach can be the study of a historical text with complete dismissal of the historical context.36 This is, however, not the approach of this thesis. Eskenazi, whilst citing Sternberg, notes, “the relation between historical information and literary analysis is necessarily dialectical.”37 Therefore, this study will attempt to be dialectical in its use of historical information, where applicable, and the use of literary tools.

1.2.3. Scope of Study While the text of Ezra-Nehemiah exists in various forms (e.g., 1 Esdras), this present study will be limited to the Masoretic Text (MT) as one authoritative representation of the Ezra-Nehemiah tradition. Also, this study will treat Ezra-Nehemiah as a single narrative and not as separate books.38 The reader of Ezra-Nehemiah must also acknowledge that the book is not a discourse

36 K. R. R. Gros Louis, “Some Methodological Considerations,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Vol. 2), ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982), 11–13.

37 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 176 (emphasis mine). Cf., Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 15–23.

38 Although there are good reasons to analyse Ezra-Nehemiah as a unified or non-unified text, we believe that analysing Ezra-Nehemiah separately to be more conjectural than studying them in unison. The earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus [B] and Codex Sinaiticus [S]), which date to the fourth century CE, present Ezra-Nehemiah as a single text. We are unaware of any Hebrew manuscripts that date as far back as the Greek, but the MT agrees with both B and S in treating Ezra- Nehemiah as a single book (Codex Leningradensis [ML], Sassoon 1053 [MS1], and Cambridge Ms. Add. 1753 [MY]). As far as the textual witnesses go, we should read Ezra-Nehemiah as one text. For extensive

14 which purely centres itself around the imperial representation of the Persian Empire; issues such as the temple, obedience to the Torah, and the question of theodicy are central and can be considered more vital than the representation of the Persian kings. Yet, at the same time, many of these matters are inseparable from, or at least connected to, the kings of Persia, thus affecting their representations. Therefore, matters which have substantial impact upon the representation of the kings will be discussed.

1.2.4. Outline of Study This thesis will be broken in to three parts: (1) A study on the imperial representations outside of Ezra-Nehemiah; (2) a study on the imperial representations within Ezra-Nehemiah; (3) a comparative analysis and summary of the imperial representations in Persian, Babylonian,

Egyptian, Greek sources, and Ezra-Nehemiah.

Chapter 2 will begin with a focus on the representations of Cyrus the Great outside of

Ezra-Nehemiah. Following this, Chapter 3 will discuss the representations of Darius I, and

Chapter 4 will be a study of the representations of Artaxerxes I. These chapters will help to formulate a frame of reference and comparison for the study of imperial representation within

Ezra-Nehemiah.

The study will then shift to an analysis on Ezra-Nehemiah. Chapter 5 will be a study of the narrative objectives of Ezra-Nehemiah. Chapter 6 and 7 are analyses of the imperial representation of Cyrus I and Darius I respectively. The imperial representation of Artaxerxes

I is separated into two sections: Chapter 8, “Imperial Representation of Artaxerxes in Ezra,” and Chapter 9, “The Imperial Representation of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah.” Chapter 10 of this

work devoted to this topic see, Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra- Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008).

15 thesis will examine the issues surrounding non-chronology and bilingualism in Ezra-Nehemiah and how it impacts the representations of the Persian kings. This will be followed by Chapter

11 where we will return to the topic of narrative objectives. Here, we will assess whether the kings of Persia help to fulfil the objectives set out at the beginning of Ezra-Nehemiah. Finally,

Chapter 12 will reiterate the observations of the study.

1.3. THE PERSIAN KINGS IN EZRA-NEHEMIAH

The names of four kings are mentioned in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah: Cyrus, Darius,

Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes. Although there are four names, this does not necessarily suggest that there are only four kings in the narrative. In fact, if we follow certain stipulations laid down by some scholars, Ezra-Nehemiah could possibly have up to seven kings:39

Order of Kings of Persia Ezra-Nehemiah Cyrus (538–530) Cyrus (Ezra 1:1ff.) Cambyses (530–522) - Bardiya (522) - Darius I (522–486) Darius (Ezra 4:5) Xerxes/Ahasuerus (485–465) Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) Artaxerxes I (464–424) Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7ff.) Xerxes II (423) - Darius II (423–404) Darius (Ezra 4:24ff.) Artaxerxes II (404–359) Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1ff.) Artaxerxes III (358–338) Arses (338–336) Darius III (355–331) Darius (Neh 12:22)

39 This list is taken from Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 255– 56.

16 Liver has noticed that despite the absence of a few kings, the biblical narrative is completely consistent with the correct order.40 The question, however, is whether the biblical text mentions seven kings. One glaring issue with the above list is that it creates internal problems for the narrative. If we accept that the Darius in Ezra 4:24 is Darius II, Zerubbabel and Jeshua would have lived well over the age of a hundred years. Zerubbabel and Jeshua are introduced in 3:2 as part of the leadership of the first wave of returnees under Cyrus’ rule. In Ezra 5:2, both

Zerubbabel and Jeshua reappear as those who helped build the house of God. According to the list above, this would then suggest that these two characters lived well beyond a century. Japhet also points out that, from a historical standpoint, it is very likely that Nehemiah should be dated to the rule of Artaxerxes I.41 But this would mean that Nehemiah’s restoration of the walls would precede the temple construction, and Ezra would not be a contemporary of Nehemiah which is clearly contrary to what Neh 8:9 narrates. Therefore, a reading that treats each king mentioned successively as a new king is difficult to maintain through the narrative.

Due to the difficultly regarding the identity of kings in Ezra-Nehemiah, a study that attempts to identify each king in Ezra-Nehemiah is necessary. Here I will examine the identities of the kings in Ezra-Nehemiah from a literary perspective.

1.3.1. Cyrus in Ezra 1 is Cyrus II, called “the Great.”42 After (כּ רוֹ שֶׁ ) ”It is universally accepted that “Cyrus conquering Susa, defeating the Median army in 550 B.C.E., conquering Lydia and much of

40 Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 255; Jacob Liver, “Regarding the Problem of the Order of the Kings of Persia in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Studies in the Bible and Judean Scrolls (Jerusalem, 1974), 127–38.

41 Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 257.

42 Fried, Ezra, 48–49.

17 western Anatolia around 540, and finally conquering Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Cyrus reached the summit of his power.43 During his reign, as told by the Cyrus Cylinder (32–33), Cyrus permitted displaced people groups to return to their lands. A royal sanction which permits people to return home is also what Cyrus decrees in Ezra 1:1ff decrees. It is, therefore, unsurprising that scholars identify Cyrus in Ezra to be Cyrus II “the Great.”

The name “Cyrus” does appear outside of Ezra 1 (3:7; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 14, 17; 6:3, 6:14).

Ezra 3:7 and 4:3 is within the same timeframe of Ezra 1 as it expands on the repatriated community under Cyrus II’s rule. Cyrus is also mentioned retrospectively in Ezra 5:13, 14, 17, and 6:3 as the authority who first gave permission for the house of God to be built. The last reference, Ezra 6:14, is also retrospective and includes his successors Darius and Artaxerxes.

1.3.2. Darius is mentioned a number of times and in various places in Ezra (Ezra ( שֶׁוָיְרָדּ ) ”The name “Darius

4:5, 24; 5:5, 6, 7; 6:1, 12, 13, 14, 15) and once in Nehemiah (Neh 12:22). There were three kings in the Persia Empire who were named Darius: Darius I, Darius II, and Darius III. The question for us is which Darius is in view in Ezra-Nehemiah. With regards to Ezra 4:5, Fried writes, “Darius I is the only real possibility.”44 This is the most straight forward reading of the verse, “and they [the people of the land] bribed officials to frustrate their plan throughout the reign of King Cyrus of Persia and until the reign of King Darius of Persia” (Ezra 4:5). The author skips Cambyses and details the length of time the “people of the land” disturbed the repatriates’ plans.

43 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 31–44.

44 Fried, Ezra, 193.

18 The identity of “Darius” in Ezra 4:24 is a much more complicated matter. If the contents of 4:24 were placed right after 4:5, scholars would not disagree over the identity of Darius the author intended to write about. Like the figure above, Dequeker has suggested that 4:24 speaks of Darius II.45 If we read Ezra 4:5–24 in a linear way, then Darius II is indeed being referred to. Presumably Artaxerxes I was the king in 4:7 and therefore the next king after is Darius II.

However, if we accept this view, as argued above, Zerubbabel and Jeshua would be well beyond a hundred years old within the narrative. Additionally, Japhet has noted that,

This view implies that other biblical evidence, such as the evidence in – 4 or the genealogical lists in 1 Chr 3:17–24 or 5:40–41, which seek to date Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the son of Jozadak closer to Cyrus’s declaration or during the reign of Darius I, are all baseless, having either been falsified initially or misinterpreted later.46

Therefore, there are some difficulties with identifying Darius in Ezra 4:5 as Darius II.

If Darius II is not the referent, then the next best is Darius I. But this suggestion also has problems of its own. If Darius I is the king mentioned in Ezra 4:24, our reading of the narrative lacks chronological sense. Between 4:7–23 Artaxerxes I is the king, and subsequently, the narrative returns to the rule of Darius I. Because of this, some have argued that Ezra-

Nehemiah consistently “subordinates chronology to theology.”47 The suggestion does alleviate

45 Luc Dequeker, “Darius the Persian and the Reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4,24),” in In Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of The International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, ed. J. Quaegebeur, OLA 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993).

46 Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 257.

47 E.g., Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, 121. Sternberg sees the use of “temporal displacement” as a style that can be adopted by a biblical author. In other words, “chronological versus non-chronological narration” (Meir Sternberg, “Telling the Time [I]: Chronology and Narrative Theory,” Poetics Today 11 [1990]: 902. Cf., Greg Goswell, “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” TJ 31 [2010]: 187). Williamson also correctly notes that “[h]owever the fact that iv. 5 has already brought the

19 a number of problems which the Darius II proposition faces. Zerubbabel and Jeshua would not be over a hundred years old; Ezra 3–4 and the lists in 1 Chr will remain consistent with Ezra

4–5. Yet, if we accept that Darius in 4:24 is Darius I, we would be forced to accept that chronology is not a principle which the author of Ezra-Nehemiah believes to be a necessary element for his story. While some modern readers may gasp at the very proposition that historiography can be written without chronology being a major principle, this may not have been the case with ancient writers.48 Therefore, the Darius of Ezra 4:24 can be considered to be Darius I.49

1.3.3. Artaxerxes is mentioned a number of times ( ראַ תְּ ַ שְׁ ח ַ ְ ס ְ תּ א or ראַ תְּ ַ שְׁ ח שַׂ ְ ְ תּ א) ”The name “Artaxerxes throughout Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 4:7, 8, 11, 23; 6:14; 7:1, 7, 11, 12; 8:1; Neh 2:1; 5:14; 13:6).

If we accept Japhet’s figure above, we have two kings named Artaxerxes: Artaxerxes I and

narrative down to the reign of Darius suggests that we should not quickly conclude that the author blundered owing to insufficient historical knowledge” (H. G. M. Williamson, “Composition of Ezra I- VI,” JTS 34 [1983]: 16).

48 See, Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 245–67.

This title is unique .( שֶׁוָיְרָדּ יִסְרָפַּה ) ”Another Darius is found in Neh 12:22, “Darius the Persian 49 occurs in Dan 11:1, but nowhere else can we ( יִדָמַּה ) ”in the HB. Becking notes that Darius “the Mede find “Darius the Persian” (Bob Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, HCOT [Leuven: Peteers, 2018], 304). The rarity of this title has led to disputed interpretations. Williamson argues that Neh 12:22 refers to Darius I (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 364), and Herodotus (2.110, 158) certainly speaks of Darius I as “Darius the Persian.” If, as Josephus says (Ant. 11.302, 325–339, 346–347), the high priest Jaddua mentioned in 12:22 is a contemporary of Alexander, then Darius III Codomanus may be the king being referred to (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 336). Fulton, however, has appropriately observed that there is no biblical confirmation that Jaddua served as high priest, and that the lineage in 12:22 is not necessarily a succession of high priests (Deirdre Fulton, “Jeshua’s ‘High Priestly’ Lineage? A Reassessment of Nehemiah 12.10–11,” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd., ed. Gary N Knoppers, Deirdre Fulton, and Lester L Grabbe, LSTS 73 [London: T&T Clark, 2011], 104). The task of identifying Darius in Neh 12:22 is indeed a difficult one. The lineage, if taken to be merely a family lineage as Fulton suggests, and the fact that Neh 12:22 follows through to Jaddua may suggest either Darius II or Darius III. Due to the very brief mention of this “Darius,” however, the identity of this figure is not so important for this present study.

20 Artaxerxes II. The first mention of Artaxerxes is found in Ezra 4:7, and a straightforward reading of the narrative would identify this king as Artaxerxes I. This is the prevailing opinion.

The same can be said of the “Artaxerxes” in Nehemiah. In the words of Japhet,

With respect to objective evidence, the greatest difficulty is in placing Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes II. Although some scholars have argued for such a dating, the preponderance of extra-biblical evidence, mainly in the Elephantine papyri, necessitates the placing of Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I, as is indeed the prevailing view.50

Japhet wrote this statement in 2006, and even to this day, placing Nehemiah in the rule of

Artaxerxes I is the prevailing view.51

There has been more disagreement regarding the “Artaxerxes” in Ezra 7–10. Both

Clines and Williamson have considered it more plausible to place Ezra, the scribe, in the period of Artaxerxes II.52 Williamson does not see any historical evidence that suggests an overlap in

Ezra and Nehemiah’s work, but still concedes from the biblical narrative that Ezra most likely returned to Jerusalem 458 BCE.53 Finding historically accurate facts, however, is not the main

50 Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 256–57.

51 For example, Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 179; David J. Shepherd and Christopher J. H. Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 49; Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 199; Ralph W. Klein, “Were Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah Contemporaries? A Response to Diana Edelman’s Proposed Late Date for the Second Temple,” JBL 127 (2008): 697–701; Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, 38–40; Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 198; Thomas Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament 9.2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelewerk, 2005), 158; Fried, “The Artaxerxes Correspondence of Ezra, Nehemiah’s Wall, and Persian Provincial Administration,” 35–57; Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers, BZAW 348 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 32.

52 Norman Snaith, “The Date of Ezra’s Arrival in Jerusalem,” ZAW 63 (1951): 53–66; H. Cazelles, “La Mission d’Esdras,” VT 4 (1954): 113–40; K Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1964), 149–84; Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemiah (Oslo: University of Oslo Press, 1964), III: 99–106.

53 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, xxxix–xliv.

21 focus of this study. As was mentioned above, the author through the narrative unquestionably has Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries working and living in the rule of King Artaxerxes.

Therefore, if we accept the author’s presentation, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7–10 should be understood to be Artaxerxes I.

1.3.4. Summary This present study will continue with the understanding that three main kings are identified in

Ezra-Nehemiah: Cyrus, Darius I, and Artaxerxes I. Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) is mentioned in passing but is not a central character in the story. A similar point can made for “Darius the

Persian” in Neh 12:44; although the identity of this Darius would be important for dating issues, it is not much of an issue for our study of the author’s representation of the Persian kings.

22

Chapter 2

EZRA 1: NARRATIVE’S OBJECTIVES DEFINED

The introduction to Ezra is one of the most vital elements for the trajectory of the narrative. It begins by immediately identifying YHWH as the deity who reigns over the Persian king Cyrus.

Much like the inscriptions above, the Persian king plays a major part in the discourse of Ezra-

Nehemiah. However, unlike some inscriptions (e.g., the Egyptian inscriptions) the discourse is not only about the king and his deeds. Instead, Ezra 1 defines the objectives of the forthcoming narrative, and that objective begins with the goals set by the God of Israel. We are told that

YHWH had set his sights on building his temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:2). Yet, the mere construction of a building is an unsatisfactory depiction of YHWH’s goals. The author makes it evident that the building of the house of God in Jerusalem was specifically for the continued practice of the cult in Jerusalem. Defining the narrative’s objectives are important for our understanding of Ezra-Nehemiah’s representation of the Persian kings, the Persian kings could be individuals who help reach these objectives or individuals who hinder the process.

2.1. EXPECTED FULFILMENT

Does Ezra-Nehemiah envision a fulfilment of prophecy or does it expect the fulfilment of a prophecy? The answer to this question determines what the reader should expect from the narrative. However, the fulfilment of prophecy and an expectation of a fulfilled prophecy are not mutually exclusive. As it will be argued, Ezra-Nehemiah acknowledges the fulfilment of prophecy, but greater expectations are still anticipated.

23 An early study by von Rad proposed that the prophetic hopes of Israel were fulfilled by the return of the remnants of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (cf., Ezra 1:5).1 Resembling von Rad’s conclusions, Fried also interprets Ezra 1:1 as a prophecy already fulfilled and not to be fulfilled.2 However, a study by Koch revealed that if there was a fulfilment, it was only partial,

“Ezra’s march from Babylonia to Jerusalem was a cultic procession which Ezra understood as a second Exodus and a partial fulfilment of prophetic expectations.”3 It is difficult to conceive events in Ezra-Nehemiah to be a complete fulfilment of prophecy. Ezra does not succeed in redeeming the returned community from their sin (cf., :1–44), and Nehemiah ends anticlimactically (Neh 13:3–31). If the physical return of the people of God was the prophetic hope of Israel, Ezra 1:1 certainly is a description of fulfilment. Yet as we will see in due course, the reference to Jeremiah in Ezra 1:1 is extremely vague, thus deducing anything definitive from it is problematic. Therefore, even if what happened in Ezra-Nehemiah reflects a fulfilment of prophecy, it is at best a partial fulfilment.

McConville has argued that Ezra-Nehemiah contains unfulfilled prophecies. 4 For instance, the prayers in Ezra 9 and Neh 9 both demonstrate the burdensome reality of being

1 Gerhard von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, BWA(N)T 54 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 24. Von Rad also thought that Ezra-Nehemiah expresses exclusivist (i.e., anti- Samaritan), anti-eschatological, and pro-Persian tendencies. Von Rad’s proposal also neatly complemented Wellhausen’s theory that viewed the post-exilic community to be the finalizers of the Torah (noted by J. G. McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy,” VT 36 [1986]: 205. Cf. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed. [Berlin: Reimer, 1899], 415).

2 Lisbeth S. Fried, Ezra: A Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 49.

3 Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 184. This thesis is only one among three Koch propounded. The other two proposed are: “Ezra came into Jerusalem as the real high priest of the family of Aaron. His purpose was to change the people into a ‘holy seed,’ around the holy place which God has given as his tent-peg and source of life during the times of political servitude” (190); “Ezra was sent ‘to all his “people beyond the river”,’ including the Samaritans. His aim was to establish one Israel out of all 12 tribes, which explains the latter acceptance of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans” (193).

4 McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy,” 205–24.

24 under Persian rule which is “indeed incompatible with the full realization of the community’s hopes.”5 Though accepting this conclusion can come across as a premature conclusion of this present thesis, the statement can be said to be correct without becoming circular. Israel’s hopes included having a Judean king and not a foreign one. This does not necessarily mean that Ezra-

Nehemiah presents a radical dissent against the rule of Persia. Hence, McConville’s research indicates that a complete fulfilment of prophecy is most likely not reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah.

If we turn our attention to the author’s presentation of Cyrus, a number of helpful observations can be made concerning the content of the prophecy in Ezra 1:1. Cyrus’ first words of command from the edict are, “he [YHWH] has charged me to build him a house at

Jerusalem in Judah” (Ezra 1:2). These are the first words of Cyrus after his spirit was stirred

by YHWH in 1:1. If the return from exile was the main fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy ( רוע )

(cf., 1:1), it is rather unusual that the building of the temple is the primary focus. The subsequent verse describes that Cyrus permits the return of the exiled community, which fulfils the hope of a return from exile. However, the return from exile seems only to be a necessary step toward the building of the temple, as indicated in 1:3, “Any of those among you who are of his [YHWH’s] people…are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD…”

Additionally, taking into account the whole narrative, Ezra-Nehemiah indicates the return from exile that happens under Cyrus’ rule is only one of many returns. The book of Ezra-

Nehemiah continues to have exiles returning to Jerusalem. This is certainly observable when the two protagonists Ezra and Nehemiah return later in the narrative (Ezra 7:1–10; Neh 2:11).

This inevitably shows that there is at best a partial fulfilment of prophecy. This suggests that there are expectations from the outset, and the king of Persia—King Cyrus in the case of Ezra

5 McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy,” 208.

25 1—has a role to play in meeting those expectations. This leads us to the next section which will lay out the specifics of those expectations.

2.2. UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIVE

The reference to Jeremiah in Ezra 1:1 is challenging. There are no clear indications that uncover what precise verse, or verses, or oral traditions the text is referring to. There have been a number of intertextual studies which have been helpful. However, as we will see below, these attempts are ultimately unsuccessful. The reader is left with one choice: to lay aside the search for a specific intertextual reference and to try to interpret what the narration assumes the prophecy to be.

2.2.1. Attempts to Find a Reference Early attempts at uncovering a reference for Ezra 1:1 were made using 2 Chr 36:21–23,6

…to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfil seventy years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfilment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up!’

6 See for example, L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Historisch Enwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und Biblischen Kritik, Zur Literatur-und Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832), 19. Cited in H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 7.

26 The linguistic parallels between these two passages are quite remarkable. Yet despite their similarities, 2 Chr 36:21–23 is not very helpful for our understanding of Ezra 1:1. This is perhaps best demonstrated through the scholarly discourse concerning these two passages.

Outside of progressing questions regarding the (non)common authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles,7 not much has been said. But in a recent study conducted by Karrer-Grube, a pertinent difference is observed: there are no allusions to the 70 years nor to the duration of the exile in Ezra 1 (c.f., 2 Chr 36:21).8 So, she concludes, “[i]n Chronicles the return of the exiles is the purpose of Cyrus’ proclamation. In Ezra the return is nothing more than a means to another end, namely, the reconstruction of the temple.”9 For these reasons, it is difficult to see how 2 Chr 36:21–23 can assist in our understanding of how Ezra 1:1 should be interpreted and what Jeremiah’s prophecy is considered by the authors.

Perhaps the most common reference for Ezra 1:1 within scholarship is Jer 29:10,10

7 For example, see Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 17–18.

8 Christiane Karrer-Grube, “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 151–52.

9 Karrer-Grube, “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah,” 151. While it is quite possible that the author of Ezra 1 copied the ending of Chronicles there is no definite reason at this point to suggest that the act of copying gives unwavering credence to intertextual allusions on behalf of the author. Moreover, the exact direction of the copying is not a settled matter. Some believe the author of Ezra-Nehemiah copied Chronicles (e.g., Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 545; Paul L. Redditt, “The Dependence of Ezra-Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008], 229–30). Others see it in the reverse; the Chronicler copied Ezra 1 (e.g., S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, Old Testament Library [London: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993], 1076–7; H. G. M Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles [Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 9–10). Otherwise it may have been copied from a third source (e.g., Fried, Ezra, 2015, 48). Other commentators merely comment on the parallels, perhaps indicating the ambiguous nature of the debate (e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988], 74).

10 For example, A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra, KAT (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1985), 41; Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 44; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 34; J.

27

For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

Here Jeremiah predicts the exiles’ return to Jerusalem after seventy years. It is, however, difficult to consider Jer 29:10 as a textual referent of Ezra 1:1. As I have already established above, Ezra 1:1 says nothing about “seventy years.” Unless the assumption is that Ezra 1 is irrefutably influenced by 2 Chr 36:21—which explicitly notes the “seventy years”—this proposal is unlikely. A more charitable assessment of this proposal would point to the thematic parallels shared between the two passages. However, the thematic parallel that is observable is the return of the exiles, yet such a parallel is so generic it would open up a great number of other possible references (e.g., Isa 41:2, 25; 44:28; 45:1, 13).11 Hence, there are no convincing reasons to favour Jer 29:10 as the referent.

Laird has suggested Jer 1:9–10 as a possible reference,

Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the LORD said to me, ‘Now I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.’

Applegate, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the Hebrew Bible: Inner-Biblical Reflections on the Prophet and His Prophecy,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception—Le Livre de Jérémie et Sa Réception, ed. A. H. Curtis and T. Römer, BETL (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997), 91– 110.

11 Verses in Isaiah have in fact been proposed as the textual referent of Ezra 1. For instance, Laird makes note that the “immediate literary context of being stirred to action” is reminiscent of Isa 45:13 (W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels in Der Persischen Periode [Heildelberg: Hornung, 1895], 28–29; Adam C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism [Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1935], 98–101; Fried, Ezra, 80–83). Others like Chapman have also added Isa 41:2, 44:28; 45:1 (Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation, FAT 27 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 232).

28 This referent is more suitable because, as Laird recognises, Ezra 1:1 does not “refer to the words of Jeremiah or his vision; rather, it refers to the Lord’s words in Jeremiah’s mouth.”12

Complementing this observation, Jer 1:9–10 focuses upon words which are placed in

Jeremiah’s mouth: “Now I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9); “See today I appoint you over the nations and over kingdoms…to build and to plant” (Jer 1:10). The passage has some similarities with Cyrus’ words in Ezra 1:2. Although it is possible, there is one roadblock to Laird’s proposal: these words are given from YHWH to a prophet of Israel,13 not the words of a foreign king (cf., 1:5, 10). There is still the possibility that Ezra 1:1 is appropriating the words of Jer 1:9–10, but the link is tenuous. Hence, it is difficult to grasp how the use of Jer

1:9–10 will assist in our understanding of what the prophecy alluded to in Ezra 1:1 is.

Attempting to make sense of Ezra 1:1, Williamson has argued that passages in Jeremiah that prophesy the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple may have closer references. This is warranted by the content of Ezra 1–6 which places great emphasis on the temple and less on the returning people.14 Williamson thus proposes Jer 51:11, “…The LORD has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is the vengeance of the LORD, vengeance for his temple.”15 Searching for a parallel that anticipates the rebuilding of the temple is perhaps the best way forward, but this suggestion by

12 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 81 (emphasis original).

13 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, AB21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 234–37.

14 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 10. The proposition that Ezra 1–6 is more concerned with temple reconstruction rather than the return of the people is an arguable point. Bach argues in favour of it (R. Bach, “Esra 1: Der Verfasser, Seine ‘Quellen’ Und Sein Thema,” in Gottes Recht Als Lebensraum. Festschrift Für Hans Joachim Boecker, ed. P. Mommer [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neurkirchener, 1993], 41– 60). Eskenazi, on the other hand, seems to put the two themes on equal footing, or at least closer than Bach (Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 43). Eskenazi’s suggestions seems more reasonable as both the return of the people and the building of the temple are encompassed within the edict (Ezra 1:2–11).

15 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 10.

29 Williamson is weakened by the lack thematic links. The passage is concerned with vengeance for the temple rather than its reconstruction. The central concern of Ezra 1–6 is the construction of the house of the LORD and it lacks any expressions of revenge on those who destroyed it.

Therefore, the attempt to discover the correct textual referent of Ezra 1:1 has proven to be very difficult. This is by no means is an innovative proposition. Frolov in his study of Ezra

1:1 reaches a similar conclusion.16 Each suggestion has either been unhelpful or lacks proper parallels. It is undoubtedly possible, perhaps even likely, that the author had a specific text or texts or traditions in mind whist writing this introduction, but it is not at all clear what that referent is. Also, there is a possibility that the author purposely “points to multiple theological and intertextual options, leaving it up to the reader to select one of them.”17 Thus, the analysis above has shown that a number of comparable themes can be found in Jeremiah, yet none convincingly match.18

2.2.2. Interpreting the Prophecy from Within The inability to find the precise textual referent should not discourage the reader from trying to understand the narrative, however. Although finding a precise reference proves difficult, the content of the prophecy can still be read and understood within the narrative.

16 Serge Frolov, “The Prophecy of Jeremiah in Esr 1,1,” ZAW 116 (2004): 595–601.

17 Frolov, “The Prophecy of Jeremiah in Esr 1,1,” 600–1.

18 Indeed, the author may have been influenced by an oral and not a textual tradition. However, if my arguments are warranted, every suggestion so far lacks close parallels with Ezra 1:1 or the parallels are too broad. Thus, attempting to find an oral tradition that may have influenced the text of Ezra 1:1 will most likely lead to no result.

30 A causal hierarchy is set up from the very beginning of the book. According to the

the king’s sprit (Ezra 1:1). The verb used for ( רוע ) author, YHWH intervenes by stirring up

thus demonstrating the causal hierarchy: YHWH ,( עה י ר ) YHWH’s intervention is in the hiphil to Cyrus. YHWH, the first cause, is said to have caused Cyrus to send, “a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict (1:1).” Thus, a causal chain is created:19

“In order to accomplish the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah” ( תוֹלְכִל הָוהְי־רַבְדּ יִפִּמ הָיְמְרִי )

“The LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia” ( ריִﬠֵה הָוהְי ַחוּר־תֶא שֶׁרֹכּ סַרָפּ־ךֶלֶמ )

“And he sent an announcement in all his kingdom and also in writing” ( לוֹק־רֶבֲﬠַיַּו וֹתוּכְלַמ־לָכְבּ בָתְּכִמְבּ־םַגְו )

From the figure above, a straightforward set of events is observable. In order for the prophecy of Jeremiah to be accomplished, the LORD stirs up King Cyrus, which subsequently results in an announcement being sent throughout the kingdom. A question, however, still remains: what exactly is the content of this announcement?

Perhaps the most easily identifiable part of the herald is the reconstruction of the house of God which necessitates the return of the people. As Cyrus says,

‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are of his people…are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah and rebuild the house of the Lord…’ (Ezra 1:2–3).

to be indicating purpose not result תוֹלְכִל I accept the infinitive construct with the participle 19 (Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Syntax [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 71).

31 These two commands “go” and “rebuild” have been considered to be part of the bedrock of the literary structure of the narrative. Porten, for instance, notices three words that course

to build).20) ” הנב “ to go up), and) ” הלע “ ,(people) ” םַﬠ “ ,throughout most of the narrative

to build) create a framework) ” הנב “ to go), and) ” הלע “ Similarly, Lortie argues that the verbs for the narrative. On a similar note, Boda observes that the first two chapters (Ezra 1–2) are

while the remaining four (3–6) to the second (“to ,([ הלע ] ”devoted to the first invitation (“to go

From the message of the herald found in Ezra 1:2–3, it is difficult to deny these 21.([ הנב ] ”build observations.

However, although I would not disagree that the main expectations are for the people

“to go” and “to rebuild,” there is one element of the prophecy that is not readily noticed. Cyrus’ proclamation does not end with the command “to build” and “to go,” but there is also an expectation to offer sacrifices,

and let all the survivors, in whatever place they reside, be assisted by the people of their place with silver and gold, with goods and with animals, besides freewill offerings for the house of God in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:4).

Nykolaishen has argued against this suggestion, “The decree makes clear reference to the rebuilding of the temple, but it is not itself explicit about the reinstitution of worship.”22

However, Cyrus’ words assume that offerings were going to be made (1:4). This was not

20 B. Porten, “Theme and Structure of Ezra 1–6: From Literature to History,” Transeu 23 (2002): 29–30.

21 Mark J. Boda, “Flashforward: Future Glimpses in the Past of Ezra 1–6,” in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda, VTSup 153 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 247.

22 Nykolaishen, “The Restoration of Israel by God’s Word in Three Episodes from Ezra- Nehemiah,” 182.

32 controversial in either Israelite and Persian ideologies. Moreover, if the decree merely speaks of the reconstruction of a physical temple, it then begs the question: what good are animals and freewill offerings in Cyrus’ command? Unless we understand the demand to take animals and freewill offerings to be expectations of continued worship, it is a moot statement. It seems, therefore that the text also expects the revivification of cultic worship in the house of God.

In addition to the narrative, the Cyrus Cylinder also supports the connection between temple reconstruction and temple worship. The Cyrus Cylinder states, “Let all gods which I have brought to their cities pray daily to Bel and Nabu for my length of days.” 23 The implication is clear, Cyrus desired not only for cities to be constructed, but also for the

Babylonian gods to be worshiped. In other words, Cyrus restored other deities to their temples so that Bel and Nabu would be prayed to. Undoubtedly, any Israelite would gasp at such a polytheistic reality but the expectations from a Persian king would be unsurprising.

Nevertheless, the significant point here is that extra-biblical evidence also supports the claim that the rebuilding of the temple meant reinstating of cultic worship.24

The revitalisation and continuance of appropriate worship in the house of YHWH makes perfect sense within the whole narrative of the book of Ezra as a whole. Porten, Lotrie, and Boda—who were mentioned above—correctly identify the objectives which continue in

Ezra 1–6. The narrative focuses on the return of people in Ezra 1–2 as it centres around the first group of returnees and devotes a whole segment for the names of those who returned (Ezra

23 Quoted by J. G. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, The Daily Study Bible Series (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1985), 8.

24 Van Leeuwen has argued that providing a temple for a god that might dwell in it ensures the flourishing of a nation (Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Cosmos, Temple, House: Building and Wisdom in Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, ed. Richard J. Clifford, SymS 36 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007], 71). Laird also notes that, “All ancient Near Eastern temple building accounts celebrate the accomplishment of the builder, and familiar rhetorical tactics legitimate the temple as a deity’s place of worship” (Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 62).

33 2). Ezra 3–6 highlights the community’s building trials with the people of the lands and the

Persian empire, and then culminates with the completion of the house of God (Ezra 6:15). The story of Ezra does not end at chapter 6, however. Ezra 7–10 narrates the establishment of the law in Jerusalem and the worship of the people before the house of God (Ezra 9:1–3). If the building of the temple was the only aim of prophecy in the author’s mind, then the book should have ended at Ezra 6. However, the book continues from the construction of the temple to its functioning.

In conclusion, the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah in the book of Ezra is concerned with the return of the people, the construction of the house of God, and the continued worship of YHWH in his house. Although the aspect of continued worship is overlooked in scholarship, it is clear within the narrative that the reinstitution, revivification, and persistence of worship in the temple of YHWH is an expectation.

2.3. CONCLUSION AND ITS RELATION TO THE PERSIAN KINGS

From the above analysis, there are sufficient reasons to believe that Ezra 1 is written with expectation of three things: the return of the people; the construction of the temple, and the worship of YHWH in the temple. It remains uncertain at least at this point in the narrative, whether such expectations will be fulfilled. But what has this to do with the Persian kings? The

Persian kings play an integral role in the narrative. Ezra 1 is a good example of King Cyrus’ major role in the narrative. The question that remains is whether Cyrus and his descendants assist, or even lead, in the expectations laid out in the introduction. Although we will revisit this question in more depth in chapter 9 of the study, it is a vital component of the presentation of the kings and an aspect that cannot be forgotten whilst analysing Ezra-Nehemiah.

34

Chapter 3

PRESENTING CYRUS

The objective of the narrative and the kings of Persia are interconnected. In the case of Cyrus, this is especially difficult to deny. Ezra 1:1 presents Cyrus as the initial vehicle by which the word of Jeremiah might be fulfilled; he is the one that makes an edict for the return of the people, the construction of the house of God, and the continued worship of YHWH. Whether

Cyrus will fulfil Jeremiah’s word is not clarified in Ezra 1, yet in the presentation of Ezra 3 it is clear that Cyrus does not fulfil Jeremiah’s word in the narrative’s perspective (cf., Ezra 1:1) which is a negative representation of the Persian king. Additionally, there is a change of tone in Ezra 4. Although Cyrus is not understood as a negative force, any reliance upon the Persian king is depicted to have devastating effects upon the following generation.

3.1. CYRUS IN EZRA 1

3.1.1. A Large Proclamation to the World Before analysing Cyrus’ edict, it is worth assessing how his edict is presented. Cyrus’ edict is unique compared to the other edicts in Ezra-Nehemiah. It plays a formative role in the narrative.

In fact, the author presents this edict as a pronouncement to the whole world, which is the kingdom of Persia. The story reads, “he [Cyrus] sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and

Among the many .( לוֹק־רֶבֲﬠַיַּו וֹתוּכְלַמ־לָכְבּ בָתְּכִמְבּ־םַגְו רֹמאֵל ) ”also in a written edict declared written documents throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, Cyrus’ legislation is unique for two reasons.

35 Firstly, it is the only decree that is sent throughout the whole kingdom (Ezra 1:1);1 and secondly,

The use of dual mediums is .(” לוֹק־רֶבֲﬠַיַּו “) but also orated (” בָתְּכִמ “) it was not only written unique within Ezra-Nehemiah, thus it is something worthwhile investigating.

Ezra 1:1) is commonly translated as “edict.” The word is used 9 times) בָתְּכִמ The word throughout the HB and appears in some of the most pivotal legislative moments in Israelite history (e.g., Exod 32:16; Deut 10:4).2 Other occurrences use the word for general letters (e.g.,

contains more force than a בָתְּכִמ ,Isa 38:9; 2 Chr 21:12). In the case of Ezra 1:1, however general letter and should be understood as a substantial legal document. This “edict” by King

indicating the ( וֹתוּכְלַמ־לָכְבּ ) ”Cyrus is one that was disseminated “throughout all his kingdom legislative nature and the intended reach of the letter.

Williamson considers the oral form of the decree to be of primary importance and the

according to Williamson, is supposedly “loosely ,( םַגְו ) ”written edict secondary. “Also attached,”3 and should be considered a “parenthetical afterthought.”4 Eskenazi, on the other hand, finds Williamson’s syntactical analysis inconclusive. She points to the reference in Gen

14:16 where Abraham battles with the kings due to his nephew Lot being captured. Here we

1 Edelman points out that the phrase “throughout the whole kingdom,” “while plausible in the terms of Persian administration policy, is suspect in the present context that addresses the Jewish population only” (Diana V. Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and The Rebuilding of Jerusalem [Sheffield: Equinox, 2005], 181). Nevertheless, the narrative believes that the decree is important enough to be both relevant for the whole of the Persian empire as it was for the exiled community.

.occurs in Exod 32:16; 39:30; Deut 10:4; Isa 38:9; Ezra 1:1; 2 Chr 21:12; 35:4; 36:22 בָתְּכִמ 2 Exod 32:16, “The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved upon the tablets,” and Deut 10:4, “Then he wrote on the tablets the ,( בָתְּכִמַּהְו בַתְּכִמ םיִהלֱא ) words as before, the ten commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the ( בָ֣תְּכִמַּכּ ) same mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me,” are perhaps the .( תֹחֻלַּה ) ”most pivotal in nature. Both passages refer to the “tablets

3 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 6–7.

4 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 4 n.1d.

36 Gen] םַגְו טוֹל־תֶא ויִחאָ וֹשֻׁכְרוּ ביִ֔שֵׁה ) ”read, “and also brought back his nephew Lot with his goods

14:16]).5 Surely rescuing Lot was neither “loosely attached” nor a “parenthetical afterthought.”

is “used with emphasised ( םַגְו ) ”Goswell also points out that in biblical narrative “and also force” (cf., Ruth 4:10).6 Thus, both mediums are of importance here.

The polemical nature of Ezra 1 can be identified easily when compared to the Cyrus

Cylinder. The Cyrus Cylinder declares that King Cyrus returned all the gods to their sanctuaries.7 Cyrus’ edict, according to the Cyrus Cylinder, is wide in scope; it effectively spoke to all religions. The book of Ezra, however, narrates that Cyrus specifically declared to his whole kingdom (Ezra 1:1) that YHWH gave the king authority and that the king’s responsibility was to make a temple for YHWH.8 The inquiry here is not which source is true, but rather the interpretation of history. Regardless of the compositional date of Ezra 1–6, the author argues that YHWH stirred Cyrus’ heart to begin a reversal of the exile and build a temple and Cyrus was aware and acknowledged it. Cyrus, therefore, was not sanctioned by Bel

(Marduk) or Nabu, but by YHWH. Cyrus did not return YHWH back to his sanctuary but was prompted by YHWH to build him a sanctuary.

Therefore, by doubling the medium of deliverance the narrative emphasises the wide dissemination of Cyrus’ edict.9 Moreover, when Ezra 1 is contrasted with the Cyrus Cylinder,

5 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 43 n.15.

6 See also, Greg Goswell, A Study Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah, (Grand Rapids: EP Books, 2013), 56.

7 Cyrus Cylinder, 34.

8 This is made clear in the narrative’s perspective since King Cyrus, in his edict, uses the .( הוהי ) tetragrammaton

9 While the narrative is emphasising the importance of the proclamation of Cyrus by doubling the medium, there is evidence that messages from the king were primarily delivered orally, and the written text existed as a guarantee of the accuracy of the oral message and as a memory aid (cf., the

37 a clear but contrasting presentation of Cyrus can be seen. Ultimately, Cyrus is portrayed as a king who is a servant of YHWH, and Cyrus’ gods are ignored altogether.

3.1.2. Interpreting Cyrus Through an Israelite Lens Scholars have noted a number of historically suspect elements within Cyrus’ edict in Ezra 1.

Apart from the more obvious oddities (i.e., Cyrus speaking in Hebrew) the decree has a few potential historical problems. Some examples include:10 (1) Cyrus’ use of the phrase “God of

Since Israel had ceased to be a political entity in 721 BCE, the name .( יֵהלֱא לֵאָרְשִׂ י ) ”Israel

יֵהלֱא ) ”Israel” would have been unfamiliar to the Persians; (2) The phrase “God of heaven“

”is possibly anachronistic in the reign of Cyrus;11 and (3) the phrase “all the remnant ( םִיָמָשַּׁה

is theologically laden, thus unlikely for a Persian monarch to know such a phrase.12 ( ראְָשִׁנַּה־לָכ )

Many of these problems are the transformation of Cyrus into a king who not only supports

Judah but an individual who partly knows the culture. The text of Ezra is a Jewish text and written through an Israelite lens, so such a phenomenon should not be surprising. Nevertheless, since Cyrus’ edict was written through an Israelite lens it contains a polemical element. King

Elephantine papyrus AP 32, where lines 2–4 can be rendered in regard to the written document “let it be a memorandum for you in Egypt to say before Arsames…”). In general, the Achaemenid Empire necessitated clear communications between the empire and the vassal states so interpreters and scribes (with interpreting skills) were used (see, Peter Zilberg, “From Dragomans to Babel: The Role of Interpreters in the Ancient Near East in the First Millennium B.C.E.,” in Registers and Modes of Communication in the Ancient Near East: Getting the Message Across, ed. Kyle H. Keimer and Gillan Davis [London: Routledge, 2017], 191–207).

10 Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple, 181. Cf., Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah, JSJSup 65 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 114–18.

11 Edelman writes, “Israel had ceased to be a political entity in 721 BCE and its core territory became the province Samerina [sic], named after the former capital. The name ‘Israel’ would not have been familiar to a Persian” (Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple, 181).

12 Due to these anomalies, Edelman argues that the edict contained in Ezra 1 is historically inaccurate (Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple, 182).

38 Cyrus, ultimately, is depicted as a king who reigns because of YHWH and pays homage to the

God of Israel.

The king of Persia concedes that “the LORD…has given me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). It was mentioned above that the phrase “God of Israel” would have been abnormal for a Persian king to use. Here we observe that the presentation of the king is through a religious lens. So, in Ezra 1, Cyrus concedes the existence of Israel as a nation and also that

“YHWH,” the personal name of the Israelite god, granted him a successful reign. Undoubtedly, this is an ideological and theological retelling of history. Not only does the narrative claim that

YHWH “stirred up” Cyrus’ spirit, but Cyrus himself accepts that YHWH reigns supreme. In fact, to make Cyrus’ concession acutely noteworthy, the author opts to use a very specific verb

to order”) for the building of the“) הוצ appoint to a task”),13 over the more common verb“) דקפ temple.14 Thus, the narrative of Ezra describes Cyrus’ reign as an act of YHWH; a depiction that Cyrus readily accepts.

While Cyrus has a large part to play in the reversal of the exile, the building of the temple, and the reconstitution of worship, the narrative does not insinuate that the king did everything with a true understanding of the religious cult. Cyrus follows YHWH’s command, but this does not mean the king is an Israelite. There are gaps in his knowledge. This is most evident in Ezra 1:7,

King Cyrus himself brought out the vessels of the house of the LORD that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his gods.

occurs only in isolated cases in the theological language of the OT with“ לע followed by דקפ 13 .(TLOT 2: 1030 , דקפ ,the meaning ‘to instruct, order, command’” (W. Schottroff

14 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 28.

39

In Ezra 1:7, Cyrus reverses the displacement of the temple vessels. The Israelite religion was aniconic; thus the return of the temple vessels should not be seen as the return of the deity.15

Nevertheless, the return of these icons is a significant event. However, the narrative is constructed in a way that the significance of the return of the vessels was unknown to Cyrus.

He merely carried out the action (Ezra 1:7), an action which held much significance for the exiled community. The focus by the author is YHWH’s deliverance of Israel. It therefore makes sense that the author adds “God of Israel” (Ezra 1:3) in the mix of Cyrus’ words. Hence, Cyrus acknowledges that he is subordinate to God, and the Persian king benefits the returned community without knowing the true extant of its significance.

Becking makes note of the fact that in the inscriptions Cyrus never designates himself as “king of Persia,” but as “king of the World.”16 For example, in the Cyrus Cylinder, he declares, “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four world ends…” Even in some Egyptian inscriptions, the Persian kings receive royal titles like “king of kings” (The Statue of Darius). Hence, Becking declares that the title

“king of Persia” given by the book of Ezra to be “historically inappropriate” and possibly “an

15 I am sympathetic to Becking’s nuanced distinction between icons with image engravings and icons without (Bob Becking, “The Return of the Deity: Iconic or Aniconic,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman, ed. Yairah Amit et al. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 58). The former is undoubtedly a form of idolatry and the latter can be construed otherwise. However, there is a difficulty with the argument that the return of the temple vessels is a “variation on the return of the deity” (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 32). My disagreement lies with a different interpretation of the end of the book. Becking believes that the list of mixed marriage perpetrators in Ezra 10:18–44 is an indication of Ezra’s effective actions. However, in my analysis the end of the book is rather anti-climactic since the book ends ambiguously. If my conclusions are correct, then YHWH’s return in the form of the temple vessels would be anti-climactic. There is no triumph in YHWH’s return and instead the narrative ends with an unrepentant community.

16 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 25. See Cyrus Cylinder, 20.

40 anachronistic term from a later period.” 17 While Becking’s comment may be true, it is nonetheless unsurprising that the author would consider Cyrus to be merely king of Persia as opposed to the king of the world. In the biblical text, Cyrus, or any other king of Persia for that matter, is never granted a royal titular that exalts him as the ruler or king over the known world.

After all, the real ruler of the world in the text is expressed in Ezra 1:2, YHWH.

In summary, the anomalies present in Ezra 1 can be understood as an interpretation of

Cyrus through the lens of a Judean author. Cyrus the Great is considered to be a subject under the God of Israel. This can be seen as a relatively uncontroversial interpretation. However, it must be added that the narrative is reserved in its portrayal of Cyrus. Cyrus’ knowledge and deeds are not over glorified.

3.1.3. Summary ,([Isa 45:1] שמ י ח ) ”Unlike Isa 44:24–45:13, Ezra 1 does not call Cyrus “messiah” or “anointed however, this does not deny the fact that Cyrus is chosen by YHWH for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 1:1). There is a sense that Ezra 1 continues a similar line of thought to Second

Isaiah. Even if we were to describe Cyrus as a messianic figure in Ezra 1, it does not automatically mean that he is perceived positively and neither does it mean he is viewed negatively. There is a sense of ambivalence when it comes to the portrayal of Cyrus in Ezra 1.

Cyrus is undoubtedly considered to be commissioned by YHWH, but his ongoing value is still to be determined in Ezra-Nehemiah. At this point in the narrative, Cyrus is not perceived positively or negatively.

In Ezra 1, there is nothing that suggests that it is anti-Persian. Instead, the text makes it thoroughly clear that Cyrus, the king of Persia, was under the rule of YHWH the Israelite God.

17 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 25.

41 Moreover, Cyrus spoke to the nations concerning Jerusalem and the god who resides there

(Ezra 1:2–3). Israel becomes extremely important to Cyrus’ world. At the same time, the narrative is careful in its portrayal of Cyrus. While Cyrus is a king who has been sanctioned by

YHWH, he is a king who is ignorant of certain things.

3.2. CYRUS IN EZRA 2–3

The narrative of Ezra 2–3 is very different from Ezra 1 as the focus shifts away from the Persian

Empire to the returning community. Cyrus is only mentioned once explicitly (Ezra 3:7) but this does not mean that the author is uninterested in the Persian King. Here in Ezra 2–3, the author displays a clearer, albeit nascent, example of dissatisfaction concerning Persian rule.

3.2.1 Disregarding Cyrus 3.2.1.1. No Attribution to King Cyrus

If we were to analyse Ezra 2 in isolation, there would almost nothing to say about Persian rule.

Neither Cyrus nor Persia is mentioned in the chapter. Also, the content of the chapter, seems to have little to do with the previous one (Ezra 1). In the words of Williamson, “Apart from its

[Ezra 2] position, the list has no connection with chap. 1.”18 So why is an unrelated chapter placed immediately after the introductory chapter? Although there may be a number of reasons, we will limit ourselves to its implications for the portrayal of King Cyrus. Here an accumulative case will be made that this lack of connection ultimately omits some of Cyrus’ deeds for the returnees.

Before the list of returned people are given, Ezra 2:1 reads,

Now these were the people of the province who came from those captive exiles

18 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 30.

42 whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia; they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, all to their own towns.

has been argued by Bortz as a ([2:1] יֵנְבּ הָניִדְמַּה ) ”The phrase, “the people of the province reference to the Persian province of Yehud.19 On this note, Becking remarks, “Remarkably, the

‘return’ is not linked to the Persian king.”20 The only king that is mentioned is Nebuchadnezzar.

A widely discussed difference between Ezra 1 and 2 is the absence of Sheshbazzar.

who returned ( איִשָׂנַּה הָדוּהיִל ) ”This character is introduced in Ezra 1:8 as the “prince of Judah all the treasures from Babylon to Jerusalem (1:11). There is evidence to suggest that

Sheshbazzar was not a Judean,21 or at least, not on the side of the Judeans. The title “prince of

Judah,” in both the text and during the Persian rule did not indicate a leader of a tribe, but rather a leader of the province of Yehud.22 Moreover, Sheshbazzar is the only leader mentioned without a patronym,23 and he is the only character in Ezra 1 who was appointed by Cyrus and not within the community. A non-Persian appointee is not unheard of in the Persian period,24

19 Anna Maria Bortz, Identität und Kontinuität: Form und Funktion der Rückkehrerliste Esr 2, BZAW 512 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 113.

20 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 41.

21 See, W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels in Der Persischen Periode (Heildelberg: Hornung, 1895), 28–29; Adam C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1935), 98–101; Fried, Ezra, 80–83.

22 Japhet convincingly argues that “Judah” is not used as a tribe in the Persian period and instead is used as a province but notes the contemporary Aramaic documents and seals which name “Yehud” (Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel — Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 [1982]: 97).

23 Japhet argues against the likelihood of Sheshbazzar not being a Jew because his role in bearing the temple vessels in light of Isa 52:11–12 which demands purity from those who handle the temple vessels (Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 96). However, to suppose that Sheshbazzar fulfils the prophecy in Isa 52:11–12 is difficult to maintain.

24 See, Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 509.

43 yet the narrative has this character in close quarters with the Persian king and Mithredath the treasurer (1:8).

The character Sheshbazzar is oddly absent in Ezra 2. Fried, agreeing with the non-

Judean heritage of Sheshbazzar, writes, “The author may have purposely omitted his name from the heading…to emphasize the Judean rather than the Persian role in rebuilding and resettlement.”25 Fried’s proposal is not a farfetched conclusion. Sheshbazzar, who has the title

“prince of Judah” (1:8), holds an important role in the counting of the goods given to the returnees suddenly disappears in the return narrated in chapter 2. Fried’s conclusion also makes good sense as the report to Darius in 5:6–17 explicitly claims that King Cyrus made

Sheshbazzar “governor.” This makes very good sense even in the context Ezra-Nehemiah is narrating about. Extra-biblical evidence suggests that the Persian empire administered governing officials to, among other thing, quash attempts of self-governance and rebellion.26

Thus, we can claim with some certainty, that within the narrative Sheshbazzar is a figure linked to the king, and this link to the king is omitted within participants who entered into the land.

One other significant absence is the temple vessels. The temple vessels from Ezra 1:7 are never mentioned in the list of gifts brought by the returnees. The temple vessels in Ezra 1 are connected to the figure Sheshbazzar, so the absence of the temple vessels may be a biproduct of omitting Sheshbazzar’s contribution. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to notice such an absence. Ezra 2 completely ignores Cyrus’ actions.

A possible explanation would be to point to a shift in focus. It may be that the focus of the author is foremost on the list of returnees rather than Cyrus. Hence, the deeds of the Persian

25 Fried, Ezra, 90–91.

26 See, Jeremiah W. Cataldo, Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Province, LHBOTS 498, (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 33–65.

44 king are not at the forefront of the narrative. This argument, however, will not do. Ezra 2:1 shows an interest in the exile led by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, so there is good reason to expect some note about the king who led them out of the exile. However, as shown in the absence of words in Ezra 2, nothing is said about Cyrus who commanded and supported the Judeans back into Jerusalem. Ezra 2, therefore, not only reduces the actions of Cyrus but elevates the community and their return.

These absences have an interesting trend: every significant absence is related to King

Cyrus. The return itself is not attributed to Cyrus; Sheshbazzar, who was elected by Cyrus, is not mentioned; and the temple vessels which Cyrus returns are not reintroduced. All of these absences and their common link to Cyrus suggest that the author attempts to reduce credit to the king for the returnees’ good fortunes.

3.2.1.2. Altering the Building Process

By the third chapter of Ezra, the reader is justified to anticipate the inception of the building of the house of God. The returns have returned to Jerusalem with Cyrus’ edict to rebuild the temple (cf., Ezra 1:3; 2:1) However, the narrative takes an unexpected turn. Instead of building the house of God, the community, under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,27 build an altar “as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of God” (Ezra 3:2).28 While this may seem uncontroversial, to begin by building an altar deviates from regular temple building

27 For historical and chronological questions regarding the first wave of returnees see, Andrew E. Steinmann, “A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles Under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–2),” JETS 51 (2008): 513–22.

28 It is held by Williamson that Ezra 3 should not be used for “historical reconstruction” because it is “theological reconstruction” (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 43–45). Rom-Shiloni, while agreeing with Williamson, uses Ezra 3 for a “sociological perception of the groups involved” which “may still be gathered from the comparison of these passages” (Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained [5th–6th Centuries BCE], LHBOTS 543 [London: Bloomsbury, 2014], 78).

45 practices. The author’s justification for such a contextually unprecedented practice is that the repatriates were following the “law of Moses” (cf., Ezra 3:2, 4). Cyrus ordered the returnees to build a temple, but they begin with an altar.

First, we must begin by noticing the focus upon the altar-building episode by the author.

The seventh month, as .( שֶׁדֹחַה יִﬠיִבְשַּׁה ) ”Ezra 3:1–6 begins and ends with the “seventh month

Williamson notes, “was the sacred month par excellence for the Jews.”29 In addition to being the sacred month, the “seventh month” is used as an inclusio.30 The inclusio here heightens the significance of the segment and, more importantly, the events which are encapsulated within the most significant time of the year.31 It is in this context where the narrative places the building of the altar before the temple foundations (3:6).

Building an altar is typically not the starting component when constructing a temple.

Hurowitz observes that the altar should be understood as a part of the restoration of worship and not the temple building.32 In the narrative, the Israelites gather and then the leaders (Jeshua,

Zerubbabel, and fellow priests) “set out to build the altar of the God of Israel” (Ezra 3:2). The oddity of this practice is also suggested in previous chapters. From the content of Cyrus’ decree

(cf., Ezra 1:2–11), the immediate construction of the “house of God” was expected. This

29 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 46.

30 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 98.

31 Matzal proposes that verses 8a–b is intentionally placed to be the centre of the chapter, thus highlighting the main themes of the chapter (Stefan Matzal, “The Structure of Ezra 3,” VT 68 [2018]: 1–8). Matzal’s thesis, however, contains a weakness: the absence of an analysis of the inclusio created by “the seventh month.”

32 V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 118. Fried also notes the oddity of having the altar built first calling it “out of order” and she says that the “erection of the altar typically belongs to one of the last stages of temple construction” (Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, BJSUCSD 10 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004], 168–69).

46 confusing sequence of events even warranted serious rabbinic debate because offering sacrifices before the completion of the temple was a potential violation of Lev 17:3–4.33

Interestingly, the author claims that building an altar to make sacrifices was according to the law of Moses,34 “as prescribed in the law of Moses the man of God” (Ezra 3:2). But he is silent concerning the precise steps and how it conformed to the law.

The unprecedented building sequence suggests that the people are portrayed to ignore

Cyrus’ edict. This, however, does not necessitate an explicitly negative depiction of Cyrus.

Instead what is suggested is that the returnees followed the law of Moses more closely than

Cyrus’ command to build. The construction of this narrative is careful, however. If Cyrus’ command was the word of YHWH and the returnees dismiss the king’s commands, the returnees would be disobeying the word of YHWH. Cyrus, however, is not presented as an omniscient character. Even though he is interpreted through a Jewish lens, he is a foreigner who most probably ignorant of the Mosaic law. As it was noted earlier, Cyrus initiates the return of the temple vessels without knowing its theological significance. In the same way,

Cyrus commands the construction of the house of God without knowing its full significance.

At the same time, the returnees do not contradict YHWH because they are following the law

33 Yosef Rabinowitz, The Book of Ezra, The Art Scroll Tanach Series (Brooklyn: Mesorah was in the time of Ezra הרות Publication, 1984), 104. This raises considerations as to what exactly the 3:2. There is the possibility that Ezra 3:2 and Leviticus 17:3–4 are drawing from different traditions. Such considerations, however, are beyond the scope of this study.

34 Ezra 3:2 may be interpreted to say that the offerings alone were perceived to be according to the law. However, the oral, or written, tradition which underpins the task of altar building seems to be derived from Deut 27:5–7, “And you shall build an altar there to the LORD your God, an altar of stones on which you have not used an iron tool. You must build the altar of the LORD your God of unhewn stones. Then offer burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God…” Two other references are possible: –which is common in Deut 27:5 ( הנב ) ”Exod 20:25 and 27:1–2. But the operative word in Ezra is “build Fried, Ezra, 158; Paul Heger, The Three Biblical) ( השע ) ”while the segments from Exodus use “make ,7 Altar Laws: Developments in the Sacrificial Cult in Practice and Theology: Political and Economic Background, BZAW 279 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999], 18). Therefore, “as prescribed in the law of Moses” in 3:2 most likely refers to both the building of the altar and the task of burnt offerings.

47 of Moses while broadly following Cyrus’ command. Therefore, a nuanced picture is created: the returnees find their first priority to build a temple according to the law of Moses, and in the law of Moses they were to build an altar first (Ezra 3:2).

The characters (Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and the rest of the repatriates) are portrayed as acting in fidelity to build the house on the basis of God’s law and not Cyrus.35 The implication is that the returned people accepted the edict of Cyrus only so far as it did not impede their ability to follow YHWH. In reality, it is very likely that King Cyrus did not concern himself with the development of this building and the narrative also does not disagree. Cyrus is nowhere to be seen in the construction of the temple. However, a nuanced point in made: the repatriates follow the law of Moses before the commands of Cyrus.

3.2.1.3. Building Despite Fear

Ezra 3 also narrates the reality of potential foreign influences. The reader is introduced to the

Ezra 3:3]),36 who strike fear into the returnees. These] יֵמַּﬠֵמ תוֹצָרֲאָה ) ”peoples of the land“ foreigners reappear later in the story only to wreak havoc within the community (cf., Ezra 9–

.within the community ( הָמיֵא ) ”In Ezra 3, the peoples of the lands are able to cause “fear .(10

In fact, if we render Ezra 3:3 as most translations do, it is read something like, “They set up

35 Fried also arrives at a similar conclusion, “He [the author] seems to have rearranged his material to convey the zealousness of the returnees and to imply that all the offerings were performed according to the prescribed law from their first arrival in Jerusalem” (Fried, The Priest and the Great King, 168).

36 This study will not pursue the lengthy debate concerning the identity of the “people(s) of the see, Ernest W. Nicholson, “The םע ־ ץראה land(s).” For fuller discussions concerning the singular ,in the Old Testament,” JSS 10 (1965): 59–66; Lisbeth S. Fried םע ץראה Meaning of the Expression “The ʿam Hāʾāreṣ in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschitz and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 123– 45; John T. Thames, Jr, “A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ʿam Hāʾāreṣ the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 130 (2011): 109–25. However, this study will assume that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah does not portray the “people(s) of the land(s)” as different people despite using both singular and plural forms.

48 they were in dread of the neighboring peoples.” Here I ( יִכּ ) the altar on its foundation, because

should be translated as a concessive. Additionally, one has to יִכּ will argue that the conjunction wonder why the community feel fear when the king of Persia has sanctioned their return.

Most translations understand Ezra 3:3 as an account of fear-induced construction. Thus translating, “They set up the altar on its foundation, because they were in dread of the neighboring peoples” (3:3). In other word, the returned community built the altar because they were afraid. If the preceding verse (3:2) is taken into consideration, this would be an example of a twofold justification for building an altar: (1) a desire to follow the law; (2) a fear of the peoples of the land. This understanding is prevalent in both translations,37 and in scholarship.38

From a grammatical, and syntactical, point of view, such a reading would accept the

,in Ezra 3:3 to indicate cause. Reading this conjunction causally, however יִכּ understanding of seems unlikely.

in Ezra 3:3 should be read as a concessive יִכּ In a previous study,39 I argued that conjunction, that is, the people of God did not build the altar because they were afraid but built in spite of their fear. The passage would then read, “They set up the altar on its foundation,

37 The NJPS has, “They set up the altar on its site because they were in fear of the peoples of with “for,” with the exception of the יכ the land.” The KJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, and ASV translate HSCB which has “even though.”

38 E.g., Hans H. Grosheide, Ezra-Nehemia 1: Ezra, COT (Kampen: Kok, 1963), 115; Frank C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 59; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 66; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 46; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 97; Lisbeth S. Fried, “Because of the Dread Upon Them,” in The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Curtis and St John Simpson (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 469; Donna Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, AIL 26 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 134. Some ancient Jewish commentators also agree with the causal reading (e.g., Ibn Ezra and Rashi). Those who have not followed this reading include, Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC 12 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), 108–9; Andrew Steinmann, Ezra and Nehemiah, ConC (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2010), 207.

39 Paul Byun, “Building an Altar Despite Animosity: A Literary Defense of the Concessive Reading of Ezra 3:3a,” CBQ 82 (2020): 38–47.

49 although they were in dread of the neighboring peoples” (3:3). One reason for this reading can be made through the indirect characterisation of the community. The returnees are never characterised as a group building due to external threats. In fact, building and not building due to external threats runs contrary to the consistent depiction of the returnees. The characterisation of the people in Ezra 1–6 is one of relentless desire to revivify past cultic practices even through harsh circumstances. Some examples include: Ezra 3:11, where the people build the temple foundations, “according to the directions of King David of Israel”;

Ezra 5:1, where the people follow after the prophets Haggai and Zechariah and reinitiate the building of the house of God without the permission of Persia. The only episode where the people stop building is found in Ezra 4:23–24 and this is due to the use of force. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to accept Ezra 3:3 as an example of the community building despite their fear.

Even though we have established that the people were building despite fear of the neighbouring peoples, there is still an underlying question which is related to this present study: why are the people in fear when the authority of the king of Persia is their defence? A possible suggestion is that the community are afraid that their enemies would report their atypical construction of the altar before the temple. This, however, is unlikely because the text gives no reason for their fear. All that is implied is that Jerusalem had existing neighbours who made life difficult. The English translation “neighbouring peoples” does disservice, since the literal translation “peoples of the lands” insinuates their previous existence and continued existence near or in Jerusalem. What the author seems to suggest is that even though Cyrus decreed the return of the exiled community, there are still real threats to the community. Cyrus’ decree allowed their return, but this does not necessitate the success of the temple building or their protection while building it.

50 3.2.2. Comparing the Present with the Past The conclusion of Ezra 3 narrates the historic completion of the second temple foundations.

Priests, Levites, and the sons of Asaph are positioned to sing praises (3:10), and the narrative includes a fragment of a psalm (3:11).40 However, the sight of the reconstructed foundation is not celebrated by all. Older members who had seen the foundations of the first temple weep

(3:12). The mix of euphoria and grief demands will be explored. This particular episode in Ezra

3 necessitates an explanation since the narrative does not reveal why the elderly expressed negative emotions.

3.2.3.1. Cyrus’ “Authorisation” of The Temple

King Cyrus is not completely forgotten in Ezra 3. In verse 7, the author notes Cyrus’ contributions for the foundation of the temple. It is said,

So they gave money to the masons and the carpenters, and food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from King Cyrus (Ezra 3:7).

After discounting the gifts of Cyrus in Ezra 2, Ezra 3 mentions some of the gifts. This is a point of inconsistency within the narrative. However, this inconsistency is utilised in the story in order to draw out a significant point concerning the king’s authority.

40 Ps 100:4–5; 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1 (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 48). The practice of using the psalms for dedication ceremonies seems to be not uncommon (see, Mikhal Avriel and Nissim Amzallag, “Psalm 122 as the Song Performed at the Ceremony of Dedication of the City Wall of Jerusalem [Nehemiah 12, 27–43],” SJOT 30 [2016]: 44–64).

51 The text highlights that the hired workers were used in the construction of the temple,

of Cyrus the community were able to hire workers.41 ( ןוֹיְשִׁר ) ”and it was by the “authorisation

Here, honour is given where honour is due. It is accepted that hired workers and cedar wood were attainable due to Cyrus’ authorisation. There is, however, an unfortunate reality when this temple is compared with the first temple. The building of the first temple also used masons, carpenters, Sidonians, Tyrians, and cedar wood. 1 Chronicles 22:2–4 uses the same language for the preparations for the first temple,

David gave orders to gather together the aliens who were residing in the land of Israel, and he set stonecutters to prepare dressed stones for building the house of God. David also provided great stores of iron for nails for the doors of the gates and for clamps, as well as bronze in quantities beyond weighing, and cedar logs without number—for Sidonians and Tyrians brought great quantities of cedar to David.

Ezra 3 indicates a difference, however. David was Israel’s king and he authorised the preparations of the temple, but now the tables have turned. It is no longer the king of Israel who sanctions the temple foundations, but the king of Persia.

The absence of the temple is seen to be problematic in Ezra 3. This is made clear in 3:6

לַכיֵהְו הָוהְי ) ”with an anticlimactic statement, “But the foundation of the temple was not yet laid

Although sacrifices were being made (c.f., 3:3–5), the temple was sadly absent. The .( א֥ ֹל סֻּ י דָסּ fact that the text points this out instead of seamlessly continuing with the building of the temple reinforces Becking’s description of the absence as a “painful absence.”42 This painful absence,

as “grant.” However, the noun may be related to the Aramaic root ןוֹיְשִׁר The NRSV translates 41 ”.which means “have the right.” Therefore, a better translation would be “authorisation שר א

42 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 57.

52 however, is only intensified by the fact that it was not a king from Israel who sanctioned the building and supplied the materials for the temple.

Furthermore, a serious contrast is created between the building of the altar and the building of the temple foundations. The altar and its offering, including all the various festivals,

Ezra 3:2]) or] רוֹת תַ ֹ מ הֶ שׁ ) ”are described as being in accordance with the “law of Moses

But the building of the foundations of the temple .([3:4] טַ֖פְּשִׁמְכּ ) ”according to the ordinance“

.(permission) ןוֹיְשִׁר :(are said to be authorised by a King Cyrus through a hapax legomenon (3:7

The temple, perhaps the most important element, was unlike the rest of the practices by the community. Every other significant building or cultic practice were organised and completed by the law of Moses or some tradition, except for the temple building.

There is a level of ambivalence in what should be a joyful event, the building of the temple foundations. Although the temple rebuilding began, it is portrayed with some reservation. Unlike the first temple, the second temple was sanctioned and partially funded by a foreign king. This reservation implies that the Persian king’s assistance to the building of the temple was less than satisfying in the author’s mind.

3.2.3.2. Cyrus Versus David

Most scholars do not see David’s appearance in the narrative to be something controversial. In the words of Becking, “David is seen here as the person who gave the Jerusalemite cult its liturgical form.”43 This is very true, however, the comment about David’s kingship here—

should be of note since it has effects on how—([3:10] דיִוָדּ לֵאָרְשִׂי־ךֶלֶמ ) ”David, king of Israel“ we understand kingship as a whole in Ezra 3. Ulrich understands David’s appearance as a

43 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 60.

53 glimpse of messianic hope.44 Goswell, on the other hand, notes that “the book fails to mention

Zerubbabel’s Davidic lineage.”45 Therefore, the inclusion of King David without the Davidic lineage suggests that the messianic hope is not in view. Instead, David’s kingship is mentioned to indicate that the community in Ezra 3 had continuity with the directions of King David despite living under the rule of a foreign king.

As stated above, Ezra 3:1–6 describes the altar, the offerings, the festivals as things linked with the law while the temple foundations in 3:7 are not. Once the temple foundations are laid, however, it is made clear that the liturgical practices were completed “according to

The phrase “according to the 46.( יֵדְי־לַﬠ דיִוָדּ לֵאָרְשִׂי־ךֶלֶמ ) ”the directions of David king of Israel

appeared in 1:8 in reference to Cyrus’ authorisation to ( יֵדְי־לַﬠ ) ”[directions [lit: upon the hands release the temple vessels, and the channels by which Cyrus operates this release is through official Persian channels.47 On the other hand, the returnees worship God through a liturgical tradition set up by King David. In other words, they worship according to official Israelite custom. The focus is drawn away from the foreign rule that exists and drawn to the customary cult which was once led by the king of Israel.

By mentioning King David, the narrative notes some success in the progress of the

Jerusalem cult. As mentioned above, although the temple was sanctioned by a foreign king, the worship structures and singing were done in accordance with Israel’s past king, David. Despite

44 Dean R. Ulrich, “David in Ezra-Nehemiah,” WTJ 78 (2016): 60.

45 Gregory Goswell, “The Prince Forecast by Ezekiel and Its Relation to Other Old Testament Messianic Portraits,” BN 178 (2018): 63.

46 My translation.

47 Cyrus gives the authority to Persian treasurer Mithredath (Ezra 1:8).

54 this positive trajectory, the narrative subsides into an anticlimactic episode at the end of Ezra

3.

3.2.3.3. Allusions to the First Temple and Its Implications

Although the temple foundations were completed, the story continues with a rather anticlimactic scene. We are told that the completion of the foundation produced a mixed response from the community (Ezra 3:12–13). The younger generation celebrate while the older generation weep. Throntveit describes the event to have a “bittersweet flavour.”48 The reasons for celebrating are quite straightforward: the temple foundations have now been built.

The reasons for weeping, however, are unclear. Ezra 3:12 reads, “old people who had seen the first house on its foundations, wept with a loud voice when they saw this house…” (3:12).49 It will be argued that the allusions to the first temple reveal the reasons behind the weeping.

48 Mark A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 24. Some have argued that the events described in Ezra 3:10–13 are overall positive (e.g., Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 72; Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 97). This suggestion, however, is difficult could not ( םע ) to accept. Ezra 3:13 makes a stark contrast with the description that “the people weeping, for the ( םע ) of the people’s ( לוק ) of joyful shout from the sound ( לוק ) distinguish the sound was heard far away.” The repetitions of both “the ( לוק ) shouted so loudly that the sound ( םע ) people are the main features of the verse. It can be seen that the repetition of ( לוק ) ”and “sound ( םע ) ”people these two nouns in different contexts—so in v.13a in the context of joy; v.13b in the context of weeping; v.13c concerning the loudness—the emphasis weighs heavily on the confusing blend of both gladness and grief. An event such as the reestablishment of the temple foundations should call for untainted shouts of joy, but the narrative portrays an anti-climactic end.

49 Fried argues that the people’s weeping in Ezra 3:12–13 may have been part of a lamentation rite for a former temple whilst a new temple is being built (Fried, Ezra, 184–87). Hurowitz provides evidence of public laments over restored cities in Sumerian foundation ceremonies (Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, 32n. 2). Fried’s consideration may indeed be true. However, it does not seem to exhaust the reasons for adding this particular scene in the narrative, especially the contrast between the cries of weeping and the cries of joy. Moreover, there is no indication within the text that there was a prescribed rite. The word “weep” is used within Ezra-Nehemiah in contexts where the subject(s) is mourning after witnessing something tragic (Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:4; 8:9) and Ezra 3:12–13 uses the weeping individuals to create a contrast with those who are joyful (Ezra 3:13).

55 of Cyrus, cedar trees are brought from the Sidonians and ( ןוֹיְשִׁר ) ”By the “authorisation the Tyrians to build the house of God (Ezra 3:7). Bänziger has observed that there are analogies to the construction of Solomon’s temple.50 There are indeed allusions to Sidon and Tyre (1 Chr

22:3; 2 Chr 2:7; 1 Kgs 5:20); transport across the sea to Joppa (2 Chr 2:15); and food drink and oil given for payment (2 Chr 2:10). Moreover, we cannot overlook the auspicious reference to the “second month” in Ezra 3:8 which is also when Solomon began his building activities (1

Kgs 6:1; 2 Chr 3:2).

The allusions to the first temple are made most explicit in the reference to the elders in

Ezra 3:12, “...old people who had seen the first house on its foundations…” The past realities

and the explicit ( םיִנֵקְזַּה ) ”are linked to the present event through the reference to “the old people

The old people had memories, most likely passed .( תִיַבַּה ןוֹשׁאִרָה ) ”mention of “the first house down, of the first temple.51

The difficult syntax of 3:12 has been a subject for many commentators,

םיִבַּרְו םיִנֲהֹכַּהֵמ םִיִּוְלַהְו יֵשׁאָרְו תוֹבָאָה םיִנֵקְזַּה רֶשֲׁא וּאָר תִיַבַּה־תֶא ןוֹשׁאִרָה וֹדְסָיְבּ הֶז תִיַבַּה םֶהיֵניֵﬠְבּ םיִכֹבּ לוֹקְבּ לוֹדָגּ םיִבַּרְ ו הָﬠוּרְתִבּ הָחְמִשְׂב םיִרָהְל ׃לוֹק

when it was founded) should be taken with the previous) וֹדְסָיְבּ It is uncertain whether expression or the latter. The consistent reference to the former house suggests that the verb

50 Bänziger writes, “Wiederum gibt es Analogien zum Bau des Salomonischen Tempels” (Thomas Bänzinger, “Jauchzen und Weinen”: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud [Zurich: TVZ, 2014], 243).

.should be understood in a figurative sense “to perceive” or “to understand.” See, D האר 51 .TWOT 2:823–25 ”, הָאָר “ ,TLOT 3:1176–83; R. Culver ”, האר “ ,Vetter

56 52.( הֶז תִיַבַּה ) ”refers to the knowledge of the former house which is compared with “this house

Nonetheless, the most important aspect of this sentence is observed by Williamson, “the somewhat awkward word order is designed to stress the contrast between the ‘first house’ and

‘this house’.”53

The constant reference to the former house acts as a clue to why the narrative includes this anticlimactic scene. 54 Unlike Hag 2:3 and Zech 4:9–10, which explain the elder’s dissatisfactions,55 Ezra is strangely cryptic. Fried has suggested that the ruins of the temple were visible thus making the elders upset,56 but this is not expressed in the text. I believe the allusions to the first temple contain some important observations. The house of God is demanded to be built with cedar wood (2 Sam 7:7) and Ezra 3:7 abides by those standards.

However, a significant contrast can be found with the means by which the foundations of the temple were built. Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:20 (cf., 2 Chr 2:7) and David in 1 Chr 22:3 provide cedar wood from their command and treasury. However, in Ezra 3:7 the king who supplies the

,to be a reference to the former house (Ezra-Nehemiah וֹדְסָיְבּ Blenkinsopp argues also for 52 100).

53 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 42.

54 Williamson summarises likely scenario, “While it is undoubtedly true that the general similarities would have been dictated by historical necessity, the verbal parallels… are sufficiently striking to demonstrate that this is a conscious allusion to the earlier description” (Williamson, Ezra- Nehemiah, 47).

55 Hag. 2:3: “Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing?” The temple in Haggai has deep theological significance as one day YHWH “will fill this house with splendour” (Hag. 2:7). For further analysis of the relationship between the temple and eschatology in Haggai see, Gregory Goswell, “The Fate and Future of Zerubbabel in the Prophecy of Haggai,” Bib 91 (2010): 83–84. Ezra, however, at this point lacks a grand concern about the eschatology and instead comments on the present perception of the temple. Zech. 4:9–10: “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.”

56 Fried, Ezra, 183.

57 material is King Cyrus; a foreign king. The turn of phrase is unique in the passage too,

is ” ןוֹיְשִׁר “ that they had from King Cyrus of Persia.” The noun ( ןוֹיְשִׁרְכּ ) according to the grant“

may justify its use to create an oral-aural ” ןוֹיְשִׁרְכּ שֶׁרוֹכּ “ a hapax and the Hebrew alliteration effect,57 thus becoming an unforgettable and essential part of the narrative. This is a significant contrast made in the narrative: the very foundations for the house of God were supplied and authorised not by an Israelite king, but a foreign one.

Every cultic practice in Ezra 3:1–13 is explicitly linked back to past traditions except for the building of the temple foundations. The building of the altar and offerings (3:2), the festival of booths (3:4), the daily offerings (3:4), and the liturgy (3:10), are all portrayed to be continuations of past traditions. The building of the foundation of the house of God, however, is said to have been authorised by Cyrus. This is a satisfactory reason for why the author includes the weeping of the elders once the temple foundations are built. No member of the community is narrated to have mixed feelings when the altar is built, or when sacrifices are made, or when the festival of booths is observed, but the elders weep at the sight of the new temple foundations which were authorised by a foreign king.

Cyrus’ God-sent help was an undeniably positive event for the Israelite community, yet ultimately the house of God cannot be fulfilled by a gentile king. The text invokes a sense of overall dissatisfaction and confusion in the people of Israel even after the completion of the temple foundations. The size or beauty of the temple is not the relevant factor here, but who reigned and organised it.

57 Gary A. Rendsburg, “Alliteration,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 85.

58 3.3. CYRUS IN EZRA 4

and ( רצ י ) ”The beginning of Ezra 4 has a group of people who are described as “adversaries who approach the returnees. These adversaries seem to have virtuous reasons, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do” (Ezra 4:1). The community, however, deny their requests. The reason for rejection is as follows, “You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of

Persia has commanded us” (4:3). Such a justification for exclusive building rights should be considered to be strange. Instead of reasoning solely on the basis of religious exclusivity, the community place their dependence on Cyrus. This reliance upon a foreign king is revealed to be the cause of ongoing problems for the community.

3.3.1. King Cyrus, Our Reason Ezra 4:1–5 is placed as an introduction to the chronologically obscure text. A group of

“adversaries” enter into the scene and declare their allegiance to “your God” and claim that they made sacrifices ever since “the days of King Esar-haddon of Assyria” (Ezra 4:2).58 The leaders of the returnees reply with these words, “‘You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of

Persia has commanded us’” (4:3). The community’s response reveals their stake in the authorisation of Cyrus.

58 Commentators are of the opinion that historically these people were foreigners (E.g., Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 49; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 107). The narrative merely perceives them to be “adversaries” and Eskenazi also observes that the phrase “your God” is a giveaway of their foreignness (Tamara C. Eskenazi, “Imagining the Other in the Construction of Judahite Identity in Ezra- Nehemiah,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman, LHBOTS 591 [London: T&T Clark, 2014], 241). Becking also notes that the adversaries do not give a name of their God (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 63). The precise identity of these people remains unresolved, but the text indicates they are enemies. The enemies who are described in Ezra 4:10 are deportees of Osnappar. The two groups may not be identical but are categorised as enemies to the returnees.

59 Williamson assesses this response in a favourable light, “The self-confessed foreign origin of those asking to help was sufficient, on political grounds, to bar them from participation…they might have jeopardized the whole undertaking if they had not kept to the letter of the authorisation granted them.”59 Historically speaking, this is indeed possible and the text implies it too. On a similar note, Blenkinsopp suggests that while the reason for rejection is justified on a technical level, “The real reason was, of course, quite different.”60

Blenkinsopp later argues that the syncretic practice of these adversaries was sufficient grounds to reject them.61 There is a problem to this proposal, however. The text does not mention that the justification behind rejecting the adversaries was based on religious principles. In fact, the reason which undergirds the leaders’ response is political: “as King Cyrus of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3). The community, at this point in the narrative, are portrayed to be seeking security under the authority of Cyrus.

If we examine the leaders’ justification, there is a subtle peculiarity. The Hebrew

רֶשֲׁאַכּ וּנָוִּצ ךֶלֶמַּה ) ”literally reads, “as which King Cyrus, King of Persia, has commanded us

is unnecessary for the reader to ( ךֶלֶמ ) ”Ezra 4:3]). The doubling of “king] רוֹכּ שֶׁ לֶ מ פּ־ךֶ רָ סָר ־ֶל comprehend that Cyrus is the king of Persia. Nowhere else in Ezra-Nehemiah is this doubling

is found in close approximation, a preposition ךֶלֶמ found. In most cases where a twofold use of is placed between the two uses (Ezra 8:36) or it is part of a speech (Neh 2:3).62 This is only normal within HB narrative where the subject of the first clause is also the subject or the object

Cyrus king of) רוֹכּ שֶׁ לֶ מ פּ־ךֶ רָ סָ of the next clause. Ezra 1:1 (cf. 1:2, 8; 3:7) has similar wording

59 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 49. See also, Fensham, Ezra & Nehemiah, 67.

60 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 107.

61 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 107.

62 I have yet to find any examples like Ezra 4:3 in the HB.

60 Persia) but lacks the doubling of the king. The narrative seems to highlight the trust placed in

This is not to say that the community have now . ךֶלֶמּ the Persian king in 4:3 by doubling relegated their whole allegiance to Cyrus, but their trust is mixed between their God and the foreign king. Ezra 3:2 portrays a people who built an altar despite hostility from “the peoples of the lands.” Here the people justify exclusive building rights by using the command of a foreign king. In the next segment, it will become clear this dependence upon Cyrus has major consequences.

3.3.2. Consequences Ezra 4:4]),63 and] ץֶראָָה־םַﬠ ) ”The narrative identifies the adversaries as “people of the land because they were prohibited from building with the community they, “bribed officials to frustrate their plan throughout the reign of King Cyrus of Persia” (4:5).

One fascinating element in the presentation of the event is the method the enemies used

םיִרְכֹסְו םֶהיֵלֲﬠ םיִצֲﬠוֹי ) to cause frustration. The enemies frustrated the plans by bribing officials

are part of the Persian ( םיִצֲﬠוֹי ) ”What must be highlighted is that these “counsellors .([4:5] imperial bureaucracy. Commentators agree upon this point.64 The words used in Ezra clearly indicate a group of Persian bureaucrats (7:28; 8:25). However, this is an ironic statement within the narrative. The returned community had just rejected the adversaries on the basis of the king’s command, but we now have a situation where the adversaries are hiring the king’s

in 4:4 should be identified to be the “peoples of ( ץֶראָָה־םַﬠ ) ”Whether the “people of the land 63 in 3:3 is an unsettled debate. Certainly, the historical identity of any of these ( יֵמַּﬠ תוֹצָרֲאָה ) ”the land two groups is a very difficult question. However, it is difficult to believe that the author considered the two groups to be completely different people (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 64). It may be the case that the “people of the land” who are also called “adversaries” includes the “peoples of the lands” in 3:3, but it may not be restricted to them (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 50).

64 E.g., Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 68; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah,108; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 64.

61 counsellors to thwart the community’s plans. Clearly, it was Cyrus’ command to build the house, but Cyrus is not called upon for salvation and nor does he re-enter into the narrative to prevent the discouragement caused by his own leadership.

There is no indication of the duration of time between the rejection of the adversaries

and it was) in Ezra) ” יִהְיַו “ and their disruption. Instead the narrative continues seamlessly with

4:4. No detailed narrative is supplied, and narrative quickly moves onto the consequences. It is as if these events progressed immediately; from one to another. But it is within this quick sequence of events where the text adds that King Cyrus was reigning (4:5). The narrative, therefore, quickly invalidates the security that Cyrus can offer and had once offered.

Undoubtedly, the picture of royal court operations in the Achaemenid empire in Ezra 4 can be said to be a simplistic one. Factions within the court could work without the king’s knowledge. The workings of the Persian court hierarchy and system is extremely puzzling, and no clear picture can be provided. However, in the words of Llewellyn-Jones, the Greek sources were certain of one thing: “the Persian Great Kings needed to be surrounded by a variety of courtiers, ranging from satraps to stable boys, because they were too grand to bother themselves with the mundane tasks of governing the Empire themselves.”65 If this perception of the court workings was common knowledge amongst the Persian empire, the community are portrayed to be extremely naïve to even consider that Cyrus would come to their aid.

Ezra 4:5 indicates that the adversaries and the Persian officials frustrated the community’s plan “throughout the reign of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Darius of Persia” (Ezra 4:5). King Cyrus, despite being the acclaimed defence of the returnees, gave no aid. According to 4:5, the building plans were disrupted “all the days of Cyrus, King of

65 Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), 30. See, for instance, Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo, 398a-b.

62 This was the consequence of justifying exclusive building rights .( יֵמְי־לָכּ שֶׁרוֹכּ ךֶלֶמ סַרָפּ ) ”Persia on the basis of Cyrus’ authorisation. The people of the land use Cyrus’ counsellors to obstruct building efforts which Cyrus commanded. Neither the king nor his successors offer protection for the returnees.

3.3.3. Time Leap Within Ezra 4:5–7, there is a leap forward in time from Cyrus (559–529 B.C.E) and Darius I

(521–486 B.C.E), to Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.E) and Artaxerxes I (465–425 B.C.E). The rapid movement through time seems to disrupt flow of the narrative. However, the narrative is purposefully structured in this way. In this section, I will begin by arguing that Ezra 4:1–24 is intricately constructed and must be read cohesively. Subsequently, an observation of the purpose for the time leap will be made.

3.3.3.1. Structure and Resumption

The narrative of Ezra 4:1–24 contains a web of connections that demand a cohesive reading of the text. While the text contains a change in language and a sudden time leap, the narrative demands that each event must be read as a development of the past. The rejection of the adversaries in the days of Cyrus (4:1–3) and the letters written against the community in

Jerusalem (4:7–8) are not disconnected events. In fact, they are intricately interwoven.

The events which transpire in Ezra 4:4–5 are the direct consequences of the actions in

4:1–3. As previously mentioned, Ezra 4:4 continues the narrative of 4:1–3 seamlessly with the

”Goswell likewise understands the unfolding events in verse 4 and 5 to be “results ”. יִהְיַו “ ,verb of the harsh reply of the community leaders (4:3).66 There are also strong thematic parallels:

66 Goswell, A Study Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah, 99.

63 both sections contain references to temple building (4:2, 4), the use of authority (4:3, 5), and interaction with enemies (4:1, 4).

The inclusion of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in Ezra 4:6 is rather peculiar. This is the first and only time Xerxes is mentioned, yet he appears to be mentioned for the reader to know the time frame. The text reads, “In the reign of Ahasuerus, in his ascension year, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (4:6). The emphasis is placed upon the “accusation” brought up against the community. However, 4:6 builds on 4:4 by assuming

” וּבְתָכּ “ :the identity of the accusers by supplying a third person plural verb without a subject

(they wrote). The odd reference to Xerxes and assumed subject of the verse indicates that 4:6 is used to connect the events in the time of Darius and Xerxes. This link is particularly important for our understanding of the subsequent verse.

While the text links 4:6 to 4:4–5 by assuming the enemies’ identity, 4:7–8 is linked with 4:6 through congruent themes and vocabulary. Here, these verses are connected through

and the purpose ,( בתכ ) ”the use of the same verbs. Verses 6, 7, and 8 all use the verb “to write

,the community in “Jerusalem” (4:6, 8). Indisputably ( לע ) ”of the act of writing is also “against the common theme between these verses is writing.

Ezra 4:5–7 spans over 90 years and four generations of kings (Cyrus the Great to

Artaxerxes I). Although the narrative fast-forwards into the rule of Artaxerxes (4:7), the narrative uses a literary technique called “repetitive resumption” to maintain cohesion between the events in 4:5 and 4:24. Williamson observes that the phrase “the reign of King Darius of

is repeated in these two verses which in turn envelops the ( תוּכְלַמ וָיְרָ דּ שֶׁ סָרָפּ־ךֶלֶֽמ ) ”Persia section as a coherent whole.67 In other words, the events which transpired in Ezra 4:5—the

67 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 57; Idem, “Composition of Ezra I-VI,” 16–17.

64 bribing of officials to frustrate the building project—should be read in conjunction with the narrative that proceeds it (4:6–25).

Ezra 4:1–3

Ezra 4:4–5

Ezra 4:6

Ezra 4:7–8

Ezra 4:6–24

The figure above is a visual representation of the links within Ezra 4. These links, despite looking dislocated, are woven together as a whole. Ezra 4:4–6, 4:6, and 4:7–8 are reminiscent of Janus parallelisms, although different.68 These three sections are linked to the previous link whilst being linked to the following section. Additionally, Ezra 4:6–25 is connected to 4:5 through a repetitive resumption. These observations thus work as accumulative evidence for a cohesive reading of Ezra 4:1–24.

3.3.3.2. The Purpose of the Time Leap

Since there are good reasons to accept a cohesive reading of Ezra 4:1–24, a unified interpretation is possible and necessary. The central argument here will be that the author utilises a time leap in order to highlight the consequences of depending on Cyrus (cf., 4:3).

68 I mention the Janus parallel as an analogy. Cyrus Gordon, who identified the phenomenon of the Janus parallel, explains that “…it hinges on the use of a single word with two entirely different meanings: one meaning paralleling what precedes, and the other meaning what follows” (Cyrus H. Gordon, “New Directions,” BASP 15 [1978]: 59). Further studies have observed more instances of the Janus parallel (e.g., Gary A. Rendsburg, “Janus Parallelism in Gen 49:26,” JBL 99 [1980]: 291–93; Scott Noegel, “Janus Parallelism in Job and Its Literary Significance,” JBL 115 [1996]: 313–20). 65 We are told in Ezra 4:5 that the adversaries continued to frustrate the community’s plans “until the reign of King Darius of Persia.” 4:6 then continues from Darius by noting that

Despite verse .( הָנְטִשׂ ) ”in the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) the adversaries wrote an “accusation

5 not reporting the length of the frustration, verse 6 makes it clear that efforts to thwart the building of the temple continued within Ahasuerus’ reign. To make matters worse, 4:7 narrates that Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, wrote against the community “in the days of

Artaxerxes.”69 The community leaders’ decision to reject the adversaries on the basis of Cyrus’ authority in 4:3 has consequences from the rule of Cyrus till the rule of Artaxerxes.70 In one sense, a domino effect is created: the adversaries not only created problems for the community in the reign of one king but four.

Before the story reaches the definitive discontinuing of all building activities, the

Aramaic narrative reveals a long list of groups who worked in unison to thwart the building of the temple,

Rehum the royal deputy and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes as follows then Rehum the royal deputy, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates, the judges, the envoys, the officials, the Persians, the people of Erech the Babylonians, the people of Susa, that is, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the

69 The name “Bishlam” has been a point of controversy both ancient and modern times. 1 as a noun םָלְשִׁבּ Esdras does not include Bishlam and has “in peace” (ἐν εἰρήνῃ) and the Peshitta takes can be derived from the Aramaic םָלְשִׁבּ with a preposition. I, however, accept Steiner’s suggestion that .Richard C) ” לֵבּ – and phonological developments “conspired to disguise the theophoric element םלשלב Steiner, “Why Bishlam [Ezra 4:7] Cannot Rest In “Peace”: On the Aramaic and Hebrew Sound Changes That Conspired to Blot Out the Remembrance of Bel-Shalam the Archivist,” JBL 126 [2007]: 401).

70 Fried also gives a negative interpretation to Zerubbabel and community leaders’ response, “[a]ccordingly we read now of the natural, but ill-advised, decision of Zerubbabel and the community leaders” (Fried, Ezra, 194). Yet Fried reasons that the response was ill-advised because it was cruel and unjust to well-intentioned people. Such descriptors, however, are unavailable in the narrative. In fact, these people are called “adversaries” by the author (Ezra 4:1).

66 province Beyond the River wrote… (Ezra 4:8–10).

The professional designations of at least the first two groups are linked to the Persian

envoys).72 The latter two may be linked to) ” אֵיָכְתַסְרַפֲא “ judges) and) ” אֵיָניִדּ “ government:71

watchers).74) ” אֵיָסְרָפֲא “ Persian officials or Tarpelites);73) ” אֵיָלְפְּרַט “ :the Persian government

( םיִצֲﬠוֹי ) ”These are foreign counterparts conspiring against Israel. At first, a few “officials worked against the community (4:5), but now a greater number of Persian bureaucrats are described to have devised a strategy against the community. If we add the rest of the people groups who were against the repatriated community, the number of opponents is indeed large.

71 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 69.

72 Possibly an Aramaic rendering of the Persian title *fraištaka. Hinz’s etymological suggestion from the Persian is formidable: a compound of fra-, “above,” stā, “to stand,” and the nominal suffix, - ka- (Walther Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut Der Nebenüberlieferungen [Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1975], s.v. *frasaka). In comparison to other suggestions (e.g., Wilhelm Eilers, Iranische Beamtennamen in Der Keilschriftlichen Überlieferung, Abhandlungen Für Die Kunde Des Morgenlandes 25 [Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1940], 40), Thambyrajah notes that Hinz’s suggestion is closest phonetically (Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 300). אֵיָכְתַסְרַפֲא is vague. However, in the context of Ezra 5:6, the role of the אֵיָכְתַסְרַפֲא Here the role of the has an investigator or inspector element to it.

,.refers to the residents of a town called Tarpel or Tripolis (e.g ” אֵיָלְפְּרַט “ Some argue that 73 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 54; Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 22). It could also be a foreign name (Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 455). An Elephantine papyrus (AP 6:6; 17:1) notes that Persian officials were usually accompanied by colleagues and 4:8–10 may be designed ,here refers to some kind of official (Blenkinsopp אֵיָלְפְּרַט to replicate a similar scene. So, it may be that Ezra-Nehemiah, 113; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 69).

Contra Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, 110) I ”. סַרָפ “ There is an obvious link with Persians 74 is a product of dittography. There is no textual evidence to suggest so. Clines אֵיָסְרָפֲא do not believe has argued that it probably means “the imperial officials” which generalises the previous signatories is not the usual word for ָסְרָפֲא אֵי Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 79). This seems to be more likely since) “Persians.”

67 The effect of Ezra 4:3 finds its (anti)climax in 4:21 when Artaxerxes commands a complete stoppage of all constructions.75 The work of the Persian bureaucrats finally succeeds and all efforts to rebuild the city of Jerusalem cease due to the decree of the king (4:21). This reversal makes it clear to readers: depending on a foreign king may indeed backfire.

3.4. SUMMARY

Cyrus is stirred by YHWH to begin the fulfilment of prophecy, and throughout Ezra 1 the

Persian king is portrayed to be neither good nor bad. However, in Ezra 2, Cyrus’ good works for the community are diminished. Moreover, Cyrus’ inability to fulfil the needs of the community is clearly shown in Ezra 3. Additionally, the narrative depicts the returnees as people devoted to following the law of Moses. Their work on the altar is portrayed to be both courageous and unabatingly reliant on the law of God. Much of the cultic practices are described to be continuations of past traditions, with the only exception being the foundations of the house of God. For this reason, the narratives include the weeping of the elders as they witness the completion of the temple foundation through the authorisation of a foreign king.

This is perceived to be a sad reality. Therefore, we may conclude that while Cyrus benefits the

75 While it is accepted among scholars that Artaxerxes’ decree was to discontinue building the city walls, Laird is right to suggest, “but narratively [Artaxerxes’ letters] are employed to explain the delayed construction of the temple from the time of Cyrus until the reign of Darius” (Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 148). Moreover, Eskenazi correctly proposed that the wall is “[t]he completion of the architectural component of the house of God under Artaxerxes” (Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 77). Eskenazi’s interpretation is further warranted by Oeming’s study of the Inscription of Edfu which dictates that the Pharaoh was to construct an enclosing wall that marked the completion of the holy area of the temple (Manfred Oeming, “The Real History: The Theological Ideas behind Nehemiah’s Wall,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah, ed. Isaac Kalimi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 147–48.

68 returnees through certain avenues, he is not depicted as a satisfactory leader over the repatriated community.76

76 Many Greek representations of Cyrus, like Ezra-Nehemiah, are nuanced and are neither overtly positive nor negative. Herodotus’ Histories, for instance, associates Cyrus with eudomonia (happiness [Hist. 1.86.6]), views Cyrus as a gentle (epios) father (3.89.3), and merciful (3.89.3). But Cyrus is also portrayed as a king whose hubris leads to his own demise. Herodotus, in a way, is nuanced in his presentation of King Cyrus. For lengthier discussions see, Lynette Mitchell, “Remembering Cyrus the Persian: Exploring Monarchy and Freedom in Classical Greece,” in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination, ed. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 283-92; Thomas B. Dozeman, “Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JBL 122 (2003): 454. 69

Chapter 4

PRESENTING KING DARIUS

If we follow the generally accepted chronology of the Persian kings, the king after Cyrus is

Darius I.1 As it was argued in the introduction, it is most likely the case that the Darius mentioned in Ezra 5–6 is Darius I and not Darius II. While under King Cyrus, the returnees exhibit trust in the Persian king which led to ongoing problems with the surrounding nations.

Yet the repatriates in Ezra 5–6 are described as committed to YHWH. This trust in the Israelite

God leads to the successful building of the temple and King Darius himself offers assistance.

However, while Darius is depicted as both a helper and authoriser of the temple building it is ultimately YHWH according to the text, who determines the outcome for the temple.

4.1. DARIUS IN EZRA 5

4.1.1. Enter God, and the Prophets The narrative introduces two prophets by the names of Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1), and their company becomes invariably beneficial for the rebuilding efforts (5:2). In the narrative, however, it is made clear that the choice to rebuild was initiated without any communication with the Persian authorities. At the end, the decision to follow the prompting of the prophets is portrayed positively and it is, in fact, narrated as if YHWH himself makes an entrance to help the repatriates.

1 The issues regarding the odd chronological makeup of Ezra 4–6 and the shift in language are discussed below in Chapter 8.

70 The entrance of the prophets can be said to be illogical with regards to the progression of the story. Fried describes this scene as a type of deus ex machina, “Their [the prophets] appearance is totally unexpected, and, in Aristotle’s terms, illogical.”2 Fried arrives at this conclusion by comparing the Ezra account with the “typical” template traceable from ancient

Near Eastern temple-rebuilding projects. 3 The entrance of these two prophets is indeed unexpected. Moreover, due to the prophets the repatriates begin to build the house of God and, as it will become evident in due course, they build without the authority of Darius.

The presence of the community’s god is felt strongly in the narrative as “God” is

is ( הָּלֱא לֵאָרְשִׂ י ) ”mentioned frequently as a present and intimate character: The “God of Israel said to be “over them [the community]” (Ezra 5:1); The prophets who assist in building the

Furthermore, when Tattenai .([5:2] אָיּאַיִבְנ אָהָלֱא־יִֽד ) ”temple are called “the prophets of God the governor of the province asks by whose authority they were building the temple, the narrative has the following remark, “but the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews…”

(5:5).4 Additionally, once the temple is rebuilt, the author notes, “They finished their building by the command of the God of Israel…” (6:14). The repetition of the God of Israel, at this point

2 Fried, Ezra, 238. See also, Idem, “Deus Ex Machina and Plot Construction in Ezra 1–6,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography, ed. Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 189–207.

3 Fried, “Deus Ex Machina and Plot Construction in Ezra 1–6,” 190–92. Also Fried argues that the citation of the documents in Ezra 1–6 is a technique appropriated from Hellenistic rules of rhetoric (Lisbeth S. Fried, “Ezra’s Use of Documents in the Context of Hellenistic Rules of Rhetoric,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah, ed. Isaac Kalimi [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012], 11–26). While this debate cannot be resolved here, we can still appreciate the rhetorical effect of techniques like deus ex machina.

4 Fried suggests that the phrase “their god” rather than “our god” is purposefully used by the author “to create distance—and fear—between the narrator and the implied reader” (Fried, Ezra, 243). However, the reader would not anticipate the use of “our god” within a third-person narration. There is no hint within the text that Ezra 5:5 is part of a speech.

71 in the narrative, shows that the action of building the temple under the auspices of the prophets was considered to be legitimated by the divine.

It is also the prophets’ words that ignite the community’s desire to begin again rebuilding the house of God. Ezra 5:1 reads, “Now the prophets… prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem…” The next verse notes the result of these prophecies, “Then

Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set out to rebuild the house of ( ןִיַדאֵבּ )

indicates that Haggai and Zechariah’s ןִיַדאֵבּ God in Jerusalem…” (5:2). The conjunction prophecy led to the rebuilding of the house of God.5 Thus, we can conclude that it was the prophets of God who sparked the building of the house of God.

Authorisations for building projects were predicated on the king’s command. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Persian officials Tattenai, Shethar-bozenai, and their associates ask

”?to build this house and to finish this structure ( םֵﬠְט ) the community, “Who gave you a decree

(Ezra 5:3). Instead of having the question answered by the community, the author makes a point concerning YHWH’s guidance, “but the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, and they did not stop them until a report reached Darius and then answer was returned by letter in reply to it” (5:5). What seems to be insinuated is that due to YHWH’s provision, the building efforts led by the prophets were not immediately stopped.

It is well known that temple-building in the ANE necessitated divine authorisation and usually also a royal builder.6 In light of this contextual note, it makes sense why the text adds

5 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 77.

6 See, Jason M. Silverman, Persian Royal-Judean Elite Engagements in the Early Teispid and Achaemenid Empire: The King’s Acolytes, LHBOTS 390 (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 190. It is not always clear what a royal builder was. An inscription at Aswan, left by a troop commander at Seyene, commemorates his shrine to a undeciphered god in the reign of King Artaxerxes I. The king, although mentioned, does not appear to have been directly involved (see, William W. Hallo, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 163). This adds some level of nuance as to how one should

72 the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah as divine authorisers of the building project. Darius, in the narrative, is not depicted like Cyrus who received divine revelation from YHWH to build the temple (cf., Ezra 1:1). So, the narrative substitutes the divine authority which first came to the king (Cyrus) to the “prophets of God” (Ezra 5:1). This makes good sense within the text as

Darius shows no memory of his ancestor’s decree. What the king of Persia could not do, or in this case, forgot, the divine authority is dispensed through the prophets.

Through and through Ezra 5 demonstrates the entrance and provision of the returnees’

God. As Fried correctly argues, the entrance of the prophets on 5:1 is a type of deus ex machina igniting the building of the temple. The Persian authorities placed no effort in rebuilding the temple. In fact, all rebuilding efforts were frustrated by the adversaries and presumably Persian officials (cf. 4:3–7). So, as Jones aptly puts it, “when the Persian court is unable to discharge its power properly towards Yhwh’s ends, he [YHWH] intervenes directly.”7 God is portrayed to be explicitly in and amongst the work of his people, thus leading to their success.

4.1.2. Building Through the Authority of God As the community rebuild the house of God, a group of Persian bureaucrats ask by whose authority they were building (Ezra 5:3). This scene is similar to that of 4:3. The difference, however, is the community’s response. The king of Persia is no longer used as the primary

understand a “royal builder.” In this sense, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel can be understood to be a “royal builder.” However, Zerubbabel’s Davidic lineage is concealed in Ezra-Nehemiah (see, Gregory Goswell, “The Absence of a Davidic Hope in Ezra-Nehemiah,” TJ 33 [2012]: 19–31), so it is unlikely that the text is trying to make a point of Zerubbabel being the royal builder. A more reasonable argument would be to refer to Ezra 6:13 where the Judeans mention King Cyrus as the monarch who decreed the building of the temple.

7 Christopher M. Jones, Retrofitting Jerusalem: Conceptions of Space, Identity, and Power in Ezra-Nehemiah (PhD diss.; University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2014), 111.

73 source of authority. Instead, the God of Israel is proclaimed as the primary authority behind the building of the temple.

4.1.2.1. Exalting the God of Israel

The report to the king contains the words of the returnees, and their reply confirms great devotion to the God of Israel. The returnees are said to have replied by saying, “We are the

הָּלֱא ) ”servants of the God of heaven and earth” (Ezra 5:11). The title “God of heaven and earth

Ezra 5:11]) with the addition of “and earth,”8 underscores the prominence of] אָיַּמְשׁ אָﬠְראְַ ו

of. Before being servants of Persia, they ( יִהוֹדְבַﬠ ) ”YHWH who the community are “servants are first and foremost servants of God.

The community also articulate that disobedience towards God is the only reason for their current distress, “But because our ancestors had angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon” (Ezra 5:12). Babylon’s conquest of Israel is not credited due to their military superiority, but it is said to be because of Israel’s failure to please God. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar is perceived as nothing more than an instrument of God’s

This .( בַהְי וֹמִּה ) ”wrath.9 This is most clearly represented in the words “he [God] gave them statement by the returned community is coloured with religious conceptions, 10 thus the narrative makes a theological declaration: it was not the might of Babylon that caused the temple’s destruction and the Israelites’ exile but the wrath of God.

Chronologically, the narrative moves from the rule of Babylon to the rule of Persia by beginning with King Cyrus. The community’s mention of Cyrus seems quite standard until he

8 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 78; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 83.

9 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 83.

10 E.g., Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 83.

74 Ezra 5:13]). This is in connection with] שֶׁרוֹכְל אָכְּלַמ יִדּ לֶבָב ) ”is called “the King of Babylon

Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in the previous verse (5:12). Becking finds no conundrums in the description. He, in fact, sees it as a positive acknowledgement of Cyrus’ rightful succession over the Babylonian kings.11 In other words, continuity is made between the Cyrus and the

Babylonian kings. Yet in the context of the biblical passage, the words of the returnees propound that Cyrus’ reign was, by extension, a rule that existed over Israel due to Israel’s sins.

Therefore, Cyrus’ reign exists as a demonstration of YHWH’s wrath. Without being explicitly said, the community also suggests that Darius, the successor of Cyrus, also rules as a demonstration of YHWH’s wrath and not because of his might.

From the analysis above, it is clear that the portrayal of Darius’ rule as the demonstration of YHWH’s wrath may have been offensive to the Persian king. Nevertheless, this is a more negative portrayal for the community who were under the rule of Darius. Cyrus is considered as “the King of Babylon” who rules over the returned community due to their sin.

Darius, although not expressed explicitly, is also suggested to dominion over the community due to the wrath of God.

4.1.2.2. “We said” or “They Said”?

In the initial encounter between Tattenai and the returned community, Tattenai asks a simple question, “Who gave you a decree to build this house and to finish this structure?” (Ezra 5:3).

Most, if not all, translations then have Tattenai and his posse subsequently asking a second question, “What are the names of the men who are building this building?” (5:4). Such a translation does not follow the MT, however. The MT has the community asking the question

we asked). If the MT is deliberate, and not simply an error, we have a) ” אָנְרַמֲא “ ,in 5:4

11 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 83.

75 confusing text before us. However, a sudden shift from third-person narration to first-person narration and vice versa is not uncommon in Ezra-Nehemiah. Similar phenomena are found in

Ezra 8:35–36 and Neh 13:1–3 where abrupt narratorial changes occur for a brief moment. Both of these passages can be understood as strategic manoeuvres,12 and the same can be said of

Ezra 5:3.

Fried has suggested that the use of the first person narration is, “a purposeful attempt by the biblical writer to create distance between the Persian officials who came to Jerusalem and the implied writer…”.13 This is certainly possible, as the effect of first person narrations against third-person narrations can create a “us versus them” mentality. While, I interpret the first-person in Ezra 5:4 to be the community speaking do not find this effect to be the most prevalent one here. In its place, the use of first-person in 5:4 does two things. Firstly, it becomes an indisputable acknowledgement that the community received questions from the Persian officials. The community are presented as reaffirming the question by asking it back to Tattenai.

Later in 5:10, Tattenai’s address to the king affirms that this particular question was indeed asked.

Secondly, it places a heavy focus on the answer to Tattenai’s question. Having the community redirect the question and then Tattenai reaffirms it, is a varied repetition making the answer highly anticipated. Tattenai asked for the names of builders, “We also asked for the names of the men at their heads” (5:10). However, the question is answered in a rather

12 See Paul Byun, “Diminishing the Effectiveness of the Wall in Nehemiah: A Narratological Analysis of the Nehemiah Memoir and Third-Person Narration,” JHebS 18 (2018): 1–11.

13 Fried, Ezra, 243. Berman and Steinmann, on the other hand, argue that the Aramaic segment’s narrator is a “gentile speaker;” a narrator who is directly opposed to the biblical writer (Joshua Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra IV 8-VI 18 Reconsidered,” VT 56 [2006]: 314; Steinmann, Ezra and Nehemiah, 253–54). This is ultimately unconvincing, however. There is no indication that this narrator has opposing views to the rest of Ezra 1–6. The end of the Aramaic section has the triumphant completion of the temple (Ezra 6:16); an accomplishment that the Hebrew section likewise sees as triumphant (6:22).

76 unconventional way, “We are the servants of God” (5:11). So, Tattenai’s essential question,

“what are the names of your heads?”, is answered with “We are the servants of God.” Although

Batten has suggested that the question in 5:4, which Tattenai affirms in 5:10, is never answered,14 an unconventional answer should not be thought as no answer at all. The concept

,is not restricted to a given name, but can also include one’s “existence ( םֵשׁ ) ”of “name character, and reputation.”15 Therefore, the answer can be considered unconventional but not impossible. Here the author offers the name by which the people build: God.

4.1.3. Darius’ Decree The decree that Darius issues in Ezra 6:1 is a highpoint in the narrative. The Persian king searches the archives which leads to the discovery of “a record” (6:2) of Cyrus’ command to rebuild the temple. Additionally, Darius acknowledges the necessity of this temple for his own reign (5:10). Even in this momentous event, the narrative does not cease to elevate the status of God. The God of Israel is said to be watching over the construction of the temple and Darius also pays tribute to YHWH.

4.1.3.1. A Precursor to Darius’ Decree: The Eye of God

The Persian king’s desire to keep order within his empire is put into tension with the narrator’s goals to complete the temple constructions. When the Tattenai, the governor, and his posse confront the returnees about the building of the temple, the narrator utilises a particular phrase within an important note in Aramaic: “But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the

Jews…” (Ezra 5:5).

14 Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 132.

.TWOT, 934–35 ”, םֵשׁ “ ,Walter C. Kaiser 15

77 Outside of interpretations regarding God’s favour towards certain groups or individuals, most scholars do not make too much of the phrase “the eye of their God.” For instance,

refers to ( ןיֵﬠ םֹהֲהָלֱא ) ”Shepherd and Wright observe that the expression “the eye of their God divine care.16 Humans can find favour in the eyes of God (e.g., Gen 6:8) and when God directs his eyes to people, they are sustained (e.g., Ps 33:18). On the contrary, when God hides his eyes, he ignores people’s requests and their needs (e.g., Isa 1:15). Undoubtedly, this is one aspect of the phrase in Ezra 5:5. On one level, YHWH is expressed to show his divine care upon the returnees.

However, there may also be another reason for using the expression “the eye of their

God” in Ezra 5:5. Williamson suggests that a contrast is made between the “eye of God” and the Persian inspectors who were popularly known as “the king’s eye.”17 While we lack Persian sources which use the phrase,18 Greek texts which describe the institutions of the Persian empire regularly refer to the “king’s eyes.”19 Within the context of the narrative, this suggestion does not seem so farfetched. Tattenai and his group are presented as inspectors; they ask questions regarding buildings and report it back to the king. Therefore, Williamson’s suggestion has some validity. The author may have purposely built a contrast between the

“king’s eye” and “God’s eye.” While Tattenai represents the king and becomes his eye upon

16 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 25.

17 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 77.

,(a Persian loanword (*gaušaka ”, איכשוג “ In the Elephantine Papyri (B27.2) the Aramaic 18 appears which is has been classically understood as “the king’s ears” (Bezalel Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change, vol. 22, DMOA [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 136 n.21). But nothing is yet to be found in the Old Persian sources that refer to the “king’s eyes.” While there are unfortunately no Old Persian documents that refer the king’s eyes, it is well attested in Greek sources (see, Jack Martin Balcer, “The Athenian Episkopos and the Achaemenid ‘King’s Eye’,” AJP 98 [1977]: 256–57).

19 E.g., Cyr. 8:2; Pers. 978–81; Hist. 1.144. 2.

78 the matters of the community in Jerusalem, in the author’s mind God’s eye is ultimately what matters.

Therefore, the precursor to Darius’ decree notes that the repatriated people are under divine care. The phrase “the eye of their God,” however, seems to be operating on two levels.

The first is to express God’s favour upon the returnees as the king’s associates confront the people and their work on the temple, but it also, secondly, contrasts the outworking of the

“king’s eyes” and “God’s eye” in the narrative.

4.1.3.2. The God of Heaven and

In Tattenai’s report to the king, we are told that the community defend their right to build by appealing to the rights afforded to them by Cyrus (5:13).20 The returnees plead to “have a search made in the royal archives” (Ezra 5:17). Darius accepts the suggestion and makes a

is ( הָנוֹרְכִדּ ) ”search (6:1). Everything works in favour of the community as a “memorandum found. The noun literally means, “an object that needs to be remembered.”21 It is noteworthy that such a decree was forgotten and needed to be searched as it stands in contrast with the returnees’ memory of their historical goals and even the decrees of Cyrus.22 Despite this, the king is not begrudging in his acknowledgement of Cyrus’ decree, and he offers more aid than his predecessor.

20 This defence for building rights is different from the previous one in Ezra 4:1. Here the people have made it clear that they are the servants of YHWH before any claim that Cyrus gave them building rights.

21 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 85.

22 Hasler offers insight into the contradictory effects of archives in Ezra-Nehemiah, “The archive’s power is thus as efficacious as it is ambivalent, enabling policies that alternately prove and disprove Judah’s potency, its religious prospects, and its worthiness of imperial favor” (Hasler, Archival Historiography in Jewish Antiquity, 47). This is indeed true. For instance, Ezra 4:17–24 is an example of archives working against the community, while Ezra 6:1–12 is an example of the complete opposite.

79 Once hearing the memorandum, King Darius first orders Tattenai, Shethar-bozenai, and associates to “keep away” and let the rebuilding take place (Ezra 6:6). The command to “keep away” is not for Tattenai and his associates to be physically distant from the counterpart but means that no suit should be brought against them, 23 and that they should help in the reconstruction effort (6:9). The help that was to be given included all payments through the

םוֹי םוֹיְ בּ ) ”royal revenue and whatever was needed it was to be given “day by day without fail

.([Ezra 6:9] אָל־יִדּ וּלָשׁ

All these commands to help the house of God are justified in Ezra 6:10, “so that they may offer pleasing sacrifices to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his children.” Laird notes that, “The benefit of the monarch is explicitly mediated through the prayers of the community—making the Persian monarch dependent on this community for divine benefaction.”24 This is ratified through Darius’ commitment to the building of the temple by declaring a substantial penalty on those who desire to alter the edict, “a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill” (Ezra 6:11). This punishment was reserved for the most heinous crimes.25

For instance, in the Behistun inscription Darius cuts off the nose and ears and impales a man who dared to call himself “king of Sagartia” (33. 2:78–91). Darius, therefore, is portrayed as acknowledging the necessity of sacrifices in this temple for his own reign. His devotion to the temple is only ratified through the severity of the punishment for anyone who dares to alter it.

23 Alejandro Botta, The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach, LSTS 64 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 96–136. Williamson also makes a similar point, “Clearly this cannot be meant literally” (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 81).

24 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 73.

25 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 128.

80 It was not unusual for an ancient Near Eastern edict to end with clauses in the form of a curse like Ezra 6:11.26 However, Darius’ decree does not end merely with a curse but ends

any king or people (6:12); a concept (מ רג ) ”by elevating YHWH as the one who can “overthrow most welcome for Jewish audiences. Moreover, perhaps the most Jewish element of the letter is found in the line, “the God who has established his name” (6:12); a phrase that is

Deuteronomic in nature (c.f., Deut 12:11),27 and a reference back to 5:1 and 5:10. Darius, consequently, is depicted to be a king invested in the construction of the house of God whilst seemingly accepting the Israelite deity’s rule.28

4.2. DARIUS IN EZRA 6

Ezra 6:14–22 narrates the triumphal completion of the house of God and the celebration thereafter. The narrative initially seems to compliment the Persian kings’ involvement in the completion of the temple. This is best observed in Ezra 6:14 in what seems to be an enormous

of the God of Israel and by ( םַﬠַט־ןִמ ) concession, “They finished their building by command

of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia.”29 The parallel vocabulary ( םֵﬠְטִּמ ) the decree

26 E.g., Behistun-inscription § 67.

27 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 94.

28 Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem, 146.

29 The narrative (Ezra 4:7–24) never indicates that Artaxerxes assisted in the construction of the temple. In fact, Artaxerxes will be the king who prohibits the building project (Ezra 4:17–22). Because of this inconsistency, some have proposed that the reference to Artaxerxes must be regarded as an early gloss (W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, HAT 20 [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949], 60; Grosheide, Ezra-Nehemia 1: Ezra, 183). Fensham has suggested, “In v.14b we have a piece of pure Jewish theology” accentuating “the divine process in which Persian kings were used in the service of God” (Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 92). There is also another alternative: an acknowledgment that King Artaxerxes finally accepts the construction projects of the returnees (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 83–84; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 129; Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 41; Fried, Ezra, 280). The latter two suggestions, however, are not mutually exclusive. We know in

81 shown by words inside the parentheses indicates a combined effort between the God of Israel and the kings of Persia who brought about the completion of the building. This, however, is not the complete intention within the narrative. The narrative contains a progressive but subtle critique against the Persian king.

4.2.1. YHWH Who Changes the King’s Heart There are some upsides to having an inclusive attitude towards the Persian rule. The community can be portrayed as a politically shrewd group; anyone who dared to oppose the temple would be rebelling against both the God of heaven and the Persian empire.30 However, the narrative does not seem to forward a politically astute tactic by compromising on core theological beliefs.

In Ezra 5, the narrative had just concluded that YHWH was the initiator of the temple building. However, Ezra 6:14 may be read as if the narrative places equal significance upon

YHWH and the Persian kings, “They [the community] finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia.” Fensham argues that the God of Israel is given priority in Ezra 6:14.31 The verse says, God is given priority through the order of the words, but this is a weak argument. The same word “decree”

,is used for the method employed by both God and the Persian kings. Thus, at this point ( םֵﬠְטּ ) there seems to be more equating than differentiating.

retrospect that Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:21–26 eventually lends support to the progress of Israelite culture and law. Additionally, the narrative suggests that the God of Israel is the clear motivator and commander of all that happens.

30 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 179.

31 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 92.

82 Later, however, in Ezra 6:22 the narrative dictates who the true authority behind the building is, “the LORD had made them [the community] joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work on the house of God.” The syntax of 6:22 presents the need of the king to have a change of heart. The first and last verbs are Piel constructions while the middle verb is a Hiphil, both suggesting causative actions by God in order for the Persian king to favour his plan.32 This is not enough evidence to suggest a negative representation of the Persian king, yet the next section on the title “the king of Assyria” works as accumulative evidence of a negative depiction of the king of Persia.

4.2.2. Why “The King of Assyria”? In the conclusion of Ezra 6, the narrative reverts back to the Hebrew language from Aramaic

(Ezra 6:19–22). Within the last few verses, we have a peculiar title given to Darius, “the king

Some scholars understand the label as a stereotypical title for .([6:22] רוּשּׁאַ־ךֶלֶמ ) ”of Assyria foreign kings.33 Others perceive that the parallel to the Assyrian rule to be a compliment.34

Both suggestions, however, are unlikely. Outside of the title “the king of Babylon” in 5:13, the kings of Persia, when specified, are always “the king of Persia” (1:1, 2, 8; 3:7; 4:3, 5, 7, 24;

6:14; 7:1; 9:9). As it was argued earlier, the title “King of Babylon” for the Jewish reader would

32 See, Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 41–42, 49–50.

33 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 85–86; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah,133; Bob Becking, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity, FAT 80 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 33.

34 E.g., Amélie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983): 92; Sebastian Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12-26, BZAW 337 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 218–23; Joseph the King of Assyria’ in Ezra 6:22,” JANES 26‘ ךלמ ושא ר Fleishman, “On the Meaning of the Term (1998): 37–45. Idem, “An Echo of Optimism in Ezra 6:19–22,” 22–24. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 96–97; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 133.

83 not have been positive. In a similar way, the royal titular “king of Assyria” contains negative undertones.35

There is no evidence of Darius describing himself as “king of Assyria” in the Persian sources.36 But even if the title may have been welcomed by Darius, the intention within the narrative is not the same. Goswell suggests that the title may be a moral judgment on Darius and the rest of the Persian kings who are not so different to the “Assyrian kings.”37 Within

Israelite historical memory, the Assyrian empire was both cruel and terrifying. A recent study by Aster finds that Isa 1–39 contains both positive and negative reflections on the Assyrian empire, which may reflect political realism, but the study also finds Isa 36–37 depicting Assyria as an enemy of God.38 Ezekiel 32:23 also accuses Assyria as those “who spread terror in the land of the living.” Darius is equated to the cruel and terrifying ruler(s) of Assyria. This is by no means a positive representation of the imperial monarch.

This negative portrayal of the Persian kings is heightened by the exclusion of the identity of the king. Omitting a name makes the king notably anonymous and perhaps unimportant.39 The reader would expect the name of the king who was responsible for the work of the house, but nothing is given.

35 Neh 9:32 also uses the expression “kings of Assyria,” but its use is a historical allusion to the Israel’s exile.

36 In the Behistun-inscription (§ 32. 1:1), Darius identifies himself as “the king of Persia” but not of Assyria.

37 Goswell, “The Attitude to the Persians in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 194. C.f., McConville, “Ezra- Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy,” 208.

38 Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology, ANEM 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), esp. 313

39 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 72.

84 4.2.3. The “Book of Moses” Concluding the Aramaic section, there is a celebratory narration of the dedication of God’s house (Ezra 6:16–18). The community offer sacrifices and arrange priests and Levites in their roles. This arrangement for clerical work, however, is said to have been enacted, “according to

Ezra 6:18]). The phrase, “the] בָתְכִכּ רַפְס הֶשֹׁמ ) ”the written requirement of the book of Moses book of Moses” is unique as nowhere else do we find the phrase. When Moses is mentioned,

.e.g., 3:2]). This anomaly will be investigated] הרות ) ”he is linked with the “law

The phrase “book of Moses” is not unique outside of Ezra. In fact, it seems to be favoured among the later books of the HB (Neh 13:1; 2 Chr 25:4; 2 Chr 35:12). Berman has

indicates a Samaritan voice. The law of the Jews is “the רַפְס הֶשֹׁמ suggested that the use of book of Moses” and not the “Torah” of God given to Moses.40 Yet Nehemiah 13:1 also has the same phrase “book of Moses,” but it would be tenuous to claim a Samaritan voice there.41 The

the law of) רוֹת תַ ֹ מ הֶ שׁ narrative could have supplied an appropriate Aramaic translation of

However, nothing is supplied.42 This leads us to the possibility . תָד א יִדּ שֹׁמ הֶ or תָד שֹׁמ הֶ ,(Moses that the author intentionally omitted a word for a specific purpose.

of ( אָיַּרְפִס ) ”An argument can be made that a comparison is created between “the books

of Moses (6:18). While decrees are made ( ַפְס ר) ”Persia (Ezra 4:15; 6:1) and the “book

40 Joshua Berman, “The Narratological Purpose of Aramaic Prose in Ezra 4:8–6:18,” AS 5 (2007): 190.

41 Neh 13:1 reads, “On that day they read from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God…” There is no evidence to suggest that Neh 13:1 contains a Samaritan voice; especially when it seems to emphasise the need to separate from the foreigners.

.is not found within any biblical text רוֹת תַ ֹ מ הֶ שׁ The appropriate Aramaic translation of 42 appears in some Mishnaic texts (e.g., Mishnah Ketubot 7:6; Tosefta Ketubah ָדּ ת ֹ מ הֶ שׁ However, the term I am indebted to Jesse . רוֹת ַ ה it does not hold the same force as , ָדּת However, despite the use of .(6:5 Mirotznik for this comment.

85 consistently within the Aramaic portion of Ezra, it is in fact the content within “the books”

in 6:1 that ultimately changes the mind of the king. This is evident in the decisions of ( אָיַּרְפִס ) both Artaxerxes and Darius (4:18–21; 6:1–12). Yet, the books that are consulted by the Persian kings lead to completely differing responses—Artaxerxes stops all building efforts, while

Darius blesses the building. Such contradictory responses portray the Persian monarchs as lacking continuity in their arrangements due to their disconnected “books.” It is as if this dominant Persian empire has kings who cannot even remember their own history. On the other hand, the returnees devote themselves to the service of God in an orderly fashion, and their decisions are made according to one source which binds them to together in a history found in a single book: “the book of Moses.”

Therefore, the inclusion of “the book of Moses” has a strong rhetorical purpose to it.

Davies summarises for us,

Appropriately, the only reference in Ezra 5–6 that is above any rhetorical strategy is to this book of Moses. What portion it was of today’s Hebrew Bible, if any, is disputed. Rhetorically, however, its status is clear. It is literally incomparable and unalterable because it is never quoted. It is the only document here that is without contradiction or adaptation. It is not open to archival verification or strategic rewording. It is set above even the decrees of the Persian ruler.43

4.3. SUMMARY

In summary, Ezra 5–6 begins by focusing upon YHWH’s sovereignty over the rule of the

Darius. This is nothing controversial in a Judean-centred text and should not be considered to be a negative representation of the emperor. Instead it is more a ratification of the theology of

Ezra-Nehemiah. Lortie rightly notes that ultimately it is YHWH who enables the temple

43 Davies, Ezra and Nehemiah, 34.

86 rebuilding through the action of the Haggai and Zechariah.44 We do, however, have two instances of negative representation through titles “the king of Babylon” (5:13) and “the king of Assyria” (6:22). In the Israelite’s memory, the nations of Babylon and Assyria brought about pain and suffering, and the king of Persia is described to be king of both Babylon and Assyria.

44 Christopher R. Lortie, “These Are the Days of the Prophets: A Literary Analysis of Ezra 1– 6,” TynBul 64 (2013): 161–69.

87

Chapter 5

PRESENTING ARTAXERXES IN EZRA

Among the Persian kings listed in Ezra-Nehemiah, Artaxerxes receives the most attention.

Chapters 4 and 7–10 of Ezra and the whole of Nehemiah are written with Artaxerxes as the emperor. Compared to his two predecessors, there are more criticism of Artaxerxes. Although

Artaxerxes is also featured in Nehemiah, this chapter will be restricted to the representation of

Artaxerxes in the book of Ezra.

5.1. ARTAXERXES IN EZRA 4

Artaxerxes is first introduced in Ezra 4:7 in a context where “the people of the land” level accusations against the repatriates through a letter to the king himself. The people of the land write, “Now may it be known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced” (4:13). These charges are portrayed as unwarranted accusations levelled against the community. Yet the king of Persia perceives these accusations to be legitimate threats to his rule, resulting in a decree which stops all building activities. This describes Artaxerxes as a paranoid king who reverses

Cyrus’ decree (cf., Ezra 1).

5.1.1. Baseless Charges and a Paranoid King Artaxerxes is consulted by means of a letter from the enemies of the Jews in Ezra 4:7. The letter to the king opens with a summary of the situation: “the Jews…They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city” (4:11–12). It is quite likely that Persian associates were required

88 to report all mischievous activities of the vassal states,1 so the charge “rebellious and wicked

is a serious accusation.2 Essentially these associates are ([4:12] אָתְיְרִק אָתְּדָרָמ קאָתְּשׁיאִבוּ ) ”city indicting the returnees of conspiring against the king.

The two charges made against the returnees are found in Ezra 4:13 and 4:16: “if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced”; “If this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River.” Porten has noticed four key words which are

3.( קזנ ) ”destroyed“ ;( הבנ ) ”built“ ;( רק י א ) ”city“ ;( עדי ) ”repeated in these accusations: “know

These four words indicate a causal chain of events: “know, (if) the city (be) rebuilt, (the king is) damaged.”4 While rebellions were not unheard of in the Persian empire,5 for this small

Jewish group to cause damage to the royal revenue (4:13) and also cause the loss of the province Beyond the River is farcical (4:16). As Becking puts it, “It is obviously absurd to think that the recovery of the city will lead to the loss of Persian interests in the province ebir

1 Internal officials of the Persian empire seemed to have worked in close quarters to one another. Analysing the seal of Ziššawiš (PFS 83 and PFS 11), Llewellyn-Jones concludes, “The two chief administrators also worked alongside the head scribe and his vast workforce of secretaries and translators, the head of royal messengers and his army of staff, and the chief treasurers, who took charge of all of the court’s financial transactions and reported directly to the king” (Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, 35).

2 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 71.

3 B. Porten, “Theme and Structure of Ezra 1–6: From Literature to History,” Transeu 23 (2002): 38.

4 Porten, “Theme and Structure of Ezra 1–6: From Literature to History,” 38.

5 Egypt had rebelled against the empire before Ezra’s time (459 B.C.E) and there were chronic revolts in the frontier-regions (i.e., the Aegean seaboard) against the Persian empire (see, Amélie Kuhrt, “State Communications in the Persian Empire,” in State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire, ed. Karen Radner, Oxford Studies in Early Empires [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014], 119).

89 nari.”6 As was mentioned above, Persian associates were required to report all malicious activities within the vassal states. However, none of the accusations made against the returnees are concrete; each charge is based upon potentiality. No proof is given other than what has happened in the past. Here the author further elevates the absurdity of the charges.

Although these charges are portrayed to be baseless, Artaxerxes accepts them (Ezra

4:21–22). Heckl writes that Ezra 4 “shows the Persian king in a disgraceful light because he only acts in response to accusations.”7 The problem with Heckl’s suggestion is that we lack any previous knowledge of Artaxerxes’ actions in the narrative. So, it is difficult to suggest he is described negatively merely because he acts in response to accusations. However, what is suggested in the narrative is that Artaxerxes acts in response to baseless charges. The king is shown in a disgraceful light because he feels threatened by what the author considers to be false accusations.

Artaxerxes agrees with the allegations after demanding a search (4:19–20), in which he finds that “Jerusalem has had mighty kings who ruled over the whole province Beyond the

River” (4:20). Williamson suggests that the “kings” in Ezra 4:20 refer to the previous Persian kings. This is because the rule of King David and Solomon were well before Assyrian or

Babylonian power took over Jerusalem.8 Becking disagrees by arguing, “His [Williamson’s] view, however, does not consider the fictional character of this letter.”9 Indeed, this reference back to the Israelite kings could be inserted into the mouths of the community’s enemies in order to boast the legacy of the nation of Israel. However, as Williamson observes, a reference

6 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 72.

7 Heckl, “The Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah as a Testimony for the Competition Between the Temples in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim in the Early Years of the Seleucid Rule over Judah,” 119.

8 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 64.

9 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 74.

90 to past Israelite kings, “has nothing to do with the charge of sedition.”10 The primary accusation in 4:15 is that Jerusalem would become a damaging entity, not that they would ascend to form a monarchy against Persia. Although unlikely, there is still the possibility that the community may rise to form a monarchy in order overthrow the Persian reign. Yet this is not the emphasis in the narrative.

A small group of people who are rebuilding their city are stopped by the ruler of the known world because of a baseless charge. This is the representation of Artaxerxes in the narrative; which is a depiction of a paranoid leader. From a biblical perspective, in view of the

Prophets (e.g., Isa 11:10; Jer 33:17; Hos 3:5) and Psalms (e.g., Ps 89:28–38; 132:11–12), Israel and its king would receive an eschatological reign over the world. In this sense, Artaxerxes would be justified to feel fear. However, the presentation here is that Artaxerxes overreacts to an insignificant threat.

5.1.2. Reversing the Decree of Cyrus Consequently, all building activities comes to a halt (Ezra 4:23). The structure of events inevitably portrays Artaxerxes in a negative light for he reverses his ancestor’s decree. From a chronological standpoint, Artaxerxes also reverses Darius’ decree. Nonetheless, as Laird correctly notes, “the imperial decrees by Cyrus, Artaxerxes and Darius are successively reversed, and contradictory rulings further undermine royal authority.”11 The portrayal of

Persian incompetence is not unique to Ezra-Nehemiah. In fact, the book of Esther depicts the

Persian king Ahasuerus using humour to highlight his incompetency to make good

10 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 64.

11 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 156–57.

91 judgements.12 Ultimately, the Persian rule is portrayed to be disorganised and unable to achieve continuity. More will be said concerning the (dis)continuity of the Persian kings in Ezra-

Nehemiah in due course.

5.2. ARTAXERXES IN EZRA 7

creating a transition into Ezra’s ,( רַחאְַו םיִרָבְדַּה הֶלֵּאָה ) ”Ezra 7:1 begins with “after these things story from Ezra 6:22.13 Although the narrative of Ezra 6 concluded with the rule of Darius I,

Ezra 7 continues the events which concern Artaxerxes from Ezra 4. But this narrative is written in the first-person.14 Ezra 7 contains segments of narrative and letters. The narrative segments mostly introduce the protagonist, Ezra, and the letters are widely called “the Artaxerxes rescript.” This rescript contains orders for Ezra to legislate the law of God and Persia in the

12 See, Jonathan Thambyrajah, “The Rhetoric of Memucan’s Speech: Genre and Characterisation in Esther 1,” ABR 67 (2019): 60–68.

13 Some scholars suppose that the editor crafted this introduction of Ezra by using Ezra’s autobiographical memoir (e.g., H. H. Schaeder, Esra Der Schreiber, BHT 5 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930], 30; W. T. In der Smitten, Esra: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte, SNN 15 [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973], 7; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 89–91; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 135; Christiane Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch-politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch, BZAW 308 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001], 227).

14 Pakkala rightly notes that we do not know who is speaking and that the verse depends on the preceding content of the letter and the third-person narrations (Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 54). He also writes, “One receives that the impression that the ensuing praise derives from an editor who took the transition from the third person narrative to the first person narrative for granted. It is doubtful that the first-person account could have originally begun in this way without any transitional elements. One would expect a clearer signal that the first-person account begins” (Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 53). Heckl, on the other hand, does not see this as a mistake but a “konkrete Intention für den Wechsel verantwortlich ist” (Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem, 259; cf., Gunneweg, Esra, 143). There are elements of continuity between Ezra 1–6 and Ezra 7. One example would be the reign of Artaxerxes. However, Heckl is correct to note that the abrupt change in narrator may be intentional.

92 land of Israel. 15 Becker has argued that the rescript paints Persia in a positive light; 16

Artaxerxes seems rather invested in the community’s well-being and the religious customs in

Jerusalem. By the standards held in the Achaemenid context, the Persian empire’s system of governance can be considered to be generous, but this is not necessarily true in the biblical passage. As I will argue, Artaxerxes is only seemingly benevolent and the reason behind his help is none other than YHWH’s involvement in the process.

5.2.1. Artaxerxes’ True Motivations In Artaxerxes’ letter, a great amount of authority is dispensed to Ezra. Artaxerxes permits the

Israelites dwelling in the Babylonian province to return and he allows Ezra to conduct himself

Ezra 7:14]). Moreover, the king offers the God] תָד ךָהָלֱא ) ”according to the law of your God“ of Israel “all the silver and gold” (7:16) in Babylon, and if more was needed, “you may provide out of the king’s treasury” (7:20). These gestures are indications of the king’s generosity as he goes beyond all expectations. With the sheer amount of contributions given to the community, a necessary question must be asked: what were the motivations behind the king’s actions? On the surface, King Artaxerxes can be perceived to be at least an ally to the repatriated community and at best possibly a worshiper of YHWH.

Unlike Ezra who works in line with YHWH, Artaxerxes is portrayed as an autonomous character. This is most evident when Artaxerxes’ contributions to YHWH are narrated to have negative motivations. The author suggests that the Persian king offers a great sum of contributions primarily for his own political establishment and the longevity of his seed. These intentions are revealed in Ezra 7:23, “Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be

15 The authenticity of the Artaxerxes rescript has been debated at length. For thorough review of past publications see Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period, 213–53.

16 Uwe Becker, “Die Perser im Esra- und Nehemiabuch,” ZAW 127 (2015): 610.

93 done with zeal for the house of the God of heaven, or wrath will come upon the realm of the king and his heirs.” Fensham comments, “It was thus in the king’s own interest that the cultic activities should continue in proper order.”17 Heckl calls Artaxerxes’ intentions “negative

Motivation” in comparison to Darius’ “postiven Motivation” in 6:10. 18 Darius provides assistance for the temple in order that pleasing sacrifices were made and so that people could

“pray for the life of the king and his children” (6:10). Artaxerxes, on the other hand, provides assistance for the temple so that the wrath of God upon himself and his heirs can be avoided.

However, a case cannot be made from 6:10 that 7:23 portrays Artaxerxes negatively. Instead, the only viable claim that can be made is that “the king too easily equated interests of state with the purpose of God.”19 From a Persian perspective, religious kowtowing would have been acceptable and perhaps even applauded. 20 Yet in Ezra-Nehemiah, which has already established its purposes of rebuilding the temple (i.e., to re-establish the cult worship of

YHWH), Artaxerxes’ motivations are problematic. These suggestions, as we will see in due course, are warranted by the fact that Artaxerxes is depicted to show no knowledge of Ezra’s law and the necessity of obeying it.

The reader may look to the tax exemptions in Ezra 7:24 as an example of benevolence,

“We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll on any of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God.” Tax exemptions guaranteed by the Persian monarch were not unprecedented,

17 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 107

18 Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem, 251.

19 Goswell, Ezra-Nehemiah, 148.

20 The Persian empire was polytheistic, so using several gods for gaining success would have been the norm. In the words of van der Spek, “polytheism was the normal type of religion in antiquity, which made it easier to accept the existence and also to respect the power of foreign gods” (van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods,” 235).

94 however. In the Gadatas Inscription of Darius, the king offers privileges to the priests of

Apollo. 21 Artaxerxes in 7:24 affords similar privileges. Although this provision can be understood as a positive presentation of Artaxerxes, the motivation revealed in v.23 changes this perception. Artaxerxes in Ezra-Nehemiah sanctioned tax exclusions to gain divine favour for the sake of political strength.

This tax exemption by Artaxerxes is rather ironic. In Ezra 4:13, the enemies of the community are narrated to have written to king Artaxerxes that “if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced.”

While the tax exemptions in 7:24 are strictly guaranteed for clergy, it cannot be denied that what the enemies feared, and what Artaxerxes certainly feared too, has partly come to pass due to the actions of Artaxerxes himself.

יִנֶּמ ָשׁ ןיִטְפ ) ”The letter continues with an imperative to “appoint magistrates and judges

This command was to be completed, “according to the God-given wisdom you .([7:25] ןיִנָיַּדְו

Some have proposed that 7:25 is an expansion of 7:14 and .( תַמְכָחְכּ ךָהָלֱא ךָדיִב־יִדּ ) ”possess assumes that the wisdom of Ezra’s God refers to the Mosaic law.22 In other words, here in the narrative we have an equating of the wisdom of God with the law of God.23 If this suggestion is correct, it would then imply that Artaxerxes had properly, or inadvertently, comprehended

21 In der Smitten, Esra, 17; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 63; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 103. The Gadatas inscription has been thought to be a possible forgery written not long after Darius’ reign (e.g., M. Hansen, “The Purported Letter of Darius to Gadatas,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 129 [1986], 95–96). However, the arguments in favour of forgery are not conclusive.

22 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia Samt 3. Esra, 74; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 151.

23 Blenkinsopp furthers this case through biblical references where biblical law and wisdom are equated (e.g., Deut 4:5, 6), “in its earliest stages, Israelite law can be seen as a specialization of clan wisdom” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament. The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism, 2nd ed., Oxford Bible Series [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995], 151). However, Sanders provides a cogent argument against this reading (see, Jack T. Sanders, “When Sacred Canopies Collide: The Reception of the Torah of Moses in the Wisdom Literature of the Second-Temple Period,” JSJ 32 [2001]: 121–36).

95 the nexus between Torah and wisdom. However, Ezra 7:25 should be understood as a simple command to wisely appoint both magistrates and judges. The wisdom of God is at Ezra’s disposal,24 so, Artaxerxes commands Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges accordingly.

Moreover, as will become apparent, the command to “appoint magistrates and judges” can be understood as a political ploy for local control.

The imperative to “appoint magistrates and judges” is thought by Fried to be “Ezra’s

( ְתְּנאְַו ) ”assignment.”25 The command in Ezra 7:25–26 is prefaced by an emphatic “and you indicating a direct instruction to Ezra. Here the letter changes from addressing Ezra in the third person to the second person. Additionally, there is a decisive difference in tone compared to the king’s earlier address to Ezra (7:14). Ezra’s tasks in vv.14–15 were not written as

If there was one task that ought to be .( נמ י ) ”imperatives,26 but in v.25 they are, “appoint completed, it was appointing these judges and magistrates. These appointed judges and magistrates were tasked to “judge all the people in the province Beyond the River” (7:25).

From the outset it seems as though Artaxerxes offers a large jurisdiction for the law of God to be promulgated.27 However, Artaxerxes’ desire for control is brought out by in the subsequent verse, “All who do not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them” (7:26). This command is made to ensure loyalty to the king.28 Frei puts it succinctly, “It is important for the central government to supervise, but also to protect,

24 Fried, Ezra and the Law, 17–18; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 116.

25 Lisbeth S. Fried, “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 88.

”. ַחיִלְשׁ אָרָקַּבְל ... לוּ הְ ֵ בי לָ הָ “ ,Ezra 7:14–15 has 26

27 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 293

28 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 107.

96 local regulations.”29 Ezra essentially, in the mind of the king, becomes an extension of his oversight and power.

There is great difficulty in interpreting Artaxerxes’ actions, as presented in the narrative, to be without mixed motivations. Evidence for self-centred incentives are made plain through

Artaxerxes’ speech. However, such a representation should not come to a surprise. After all, even biblical kings are not without self-centred motivations.30 Nonetheless, this representation undermines the perception that Artaxerxes is helping the community on the basis of good will, therefore, presenting Artaxerxes in a more critical light.

5.2.2. The Law of the King and the Law of God Following the task of appointing judges and magistrates, the king sanctions Ezra with license to punish lawbreakers. The legal foundation by which Ezra judges is, as Artaxerxes puts it,

.([Ezra 7:26] אָתָדּ ךָהָלֱא־יִד אָתָדְו יִדּ אָכְּלַמ ) ”the law of your God and the law of the king“

Williamson sees the words of the king as evidence of an improved relationship between the

Jews and their foreign ruler.31 Fried conceives the “law of the king” to be positive law or a

“natural law.”32 That is, a body of law that is not precisely Torah law but is considered moral by God’s standards. Eskenazi writes concerning the law of the king and the law of God, “Ezra-

Nehemiah envisions no tension between the two.”33 All these suggestions are, more or less,

29 Peter Frei, “Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 7.

30 E.g., 2 Sam 11.

31 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 105.

32 Fried, “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’,” 88.

33 Eskenazi, In the Age of Prose, 77.

97 positive evaluations of the king’s response. I will argue, however, that this is Artaxerxes’ attempt to amalgamate Persian law with Israelite law. Such legal combination is not a positive outcome for the community, nor a positive perception of the Persian king.

Artaxerxes’ statement in Ezra 7:26 can be understood to be a Persian custom. Although a level of sovereignty was given to the existing vassal states, it inconceivable that the Persian government would hand over complete jurisdiction. Thus, the narrative exposes an interesting point. As Ezra is given authority to execute judgment, the king prescribes specific punishments for perpetrators, “for death or for banishment or for confiscation of their goods or for imprisonment” (7:26). But some of these punishments are unprecedented in Israelite legal

which is a Persian loanword for , וּשֹׁרְשׁ tradition. One particular penalty that stands out is corporal punishment, usually by means of flogging.34 There is no legal precedent in Israelite law where a felon is flogged.35

In addition, Artaxerxes commands that Ezra should imprison criminals (Ezra 7:26).

Fensham points to Lev 24:12 and Num 15:34 as examples of imprisonment. 36 Both

Pentateuchal texts are very similar and are known as “the blasphemer narrative.”37 The problem, however, with Fensham’s suggestion is that Lev 24:12 and Num 15:34 are not punishments

34 The word is suggested to be from Persian, based on the Avestan form, sraošyā (Frithiof Rundgren, “Zur Bedeutung von ŠRŠW—Esra VII 26,” VT 7 [1957]: 400–404; Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, 108; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 152). For an in-depth analysis see Thambyrajah, Loanwords in the Biblical Literature, 322–23.

35 Yoo, Ezra and the Second Wilderness, 101–2. Flaying is attested by Ctesias (F 9 [6], F 9a, F16; Herodotus 5.25). When the perpetrator was flayed, they would either die by heart failure or by hypothermia and infections (see, Bruno Jacobs, “Grausame Hinrichtungen – friedliche Bilder. Zum Verhältnis der politischen Realität zu den Darstellungsszenarien der achämenidischen Kunst,” in Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums, ed. Martin Zimmermann, Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt 5 [München: Herbert Utz Verlag GmbH, 2009], 140).

36 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 107.

37 Mark Leuchter, “The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10-23,” JBL 130 (2011): 431–32.

98 until a proper verdict is ( רָמְשִׁמַּבּ ) ”per se. The blasphemer is explicitly said to be “in watch given by YHWH. Awaiting a just verdict is the purpose of watching over, or even confining, the perpetrator, not imprisonment as a punishment.38

Persian modes of punishment are totally different to Jewish forms of punishment. Most of our information concerning Persian methods of punishment are from secondary sources, mainly classical authors. The Behistun inscription, however, is one Persian source that refers to the use of torture,

I [Darius] cut off his [Phraortes] nose and ears and tongue, and put out one eye; he was kept bound at my palace entrance, all the people saw him. Afterward I impaled him at Ecbatana; and the men who were his foremost followers, those at Ecbatana within the fortress I (flayed and) hung out (their hides, and stuffed with straw) (32. 2:70–78).

The same punishment was given to a man named “Ciçantakhma” (33. 2:78–91). Ctesias’ accounts on Persia’s inhumane punishments have been received with some scepticism.39 But not everything should be disregarded as fiction, as the lengths to which Darius went with his torture methods in the Behistun inscription makes Ctesias’ descriptions rather plausible. If the narrative’s understanding of Persian modes of punishment is anything close to Darius’ own words, they are certainly punishments well beyond the parameters of Israelite law. There is simply no legal precedent in Israelite law where a perpetrator is flayed or imprisoned and definitely none that prescribe facial mutilation and impaling.

38 Leigh M. Trevaskis, “The Purpose of Leviticus 24 within Its Literary Context,” VT 59 (2009): 308; Jonathan Burnside, “‘What Shall We Do with the Sabbath-Gatherer?’ A Narrative Approach to a ‘Hard Case’ in Biblical Law (Numbers 15:32-36),” VT 60 (2010): 57–58.

39 See in particular F. Jacoby, “Ktesias,” RE 11 (1922): 2032–73. For an opposing view see, Jan P. Stronk, “Ctesias of Cnidus, a Reappraisal,” Mnemosyne 60 (2007): 25–68.

99 It is quite possible to read Artaxerxes’ words in Ezra 7:26, “the law of your God and the law of the king,” as a suggestion for the law of Persia to function alongside Israelite law.

That is, disobeying the king’s command to respect the jurisdiction of Israelite law will result in the king’s punishments. Such a reading would negate a critical presentation of Artaxerxes’ motive; Artaxerxes would be a king who guards the legislative progress and process in

Jerusalem. The difficulty with this reading is the lack of evidence from the text. Ezra’s jurisdiction is limited to the Jewish communities within the province as indicated by the mention of “all the people in the province Beyond the River who know the laws of your God;”

(7:25).40 When Artaxerxes says, “All who will not obey…” he also includes those in the Jewish community that do not obey. Artaxerxes, therefore, makes himself inseparable from the law of

God through his decree.41

For the king of Persia to allow the legislation of the law of God in Jerusalem is considered to be a blessing in it of itself. The narrative makes this clear through Ezra’s words,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of our ancestors, who put such a thing as this into the heart of the king to glorify the house of the Lord in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:27).42 But there is another underlying reality: Artaxerxes wants a mixing of legal traditions. This is by no means a positive outcome in the narrative for the community. Therefore, Artaxerxes’ representation is not as a king who promulgates the law of Moses in Jerusalem but someone who hinders its establishment and complete legislation.

40 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 34.

41 Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem, 255.

42 Although Ezra 7:27 does not mention the law, Ezra’s praise to God appears immediately after Artaxerxes’ decree for Ezra to appoint and teach the laws of YHWH to the magistrates and judges (7:25–26). In 7:27, there is a correlation between the legislation of law of God and the function of the temple.

100 5.2.3. Artaxerxes the Subsidiary Vessel of YHWH’s Plan Through Ezra 7:6 a hierarchy is created and reiterated. Clearly, in the narrative’s theological framework, YHWH determines the course of history and the king of Persia is not exempt from this. But representations can differ within this theological framework. For instance, Cyrus was explicitly prompted by YHWH to action his plans. Cyrus’ calling is an example of YHWH working through and alongside a foreign king. Artaxerxes’ portrayal is different. Instead of the king, it is the scribe Ezra who is endowed with the divine’s sanction and task. Due to YHWH’s endorsement of Ezra, Artaxerxes is understood to endorse the scribe. In Persian court custom, the scribe listens to the king and offers up his services, but this is not the case in this narrative.

Unlike Cyrus, who was the direct operator of the divine’s plan, Artaxerxes is relegated to be a subsidiary instrument.

We read in Ezra 7:6 that “the king granted him [Ezra] all that he asked” (Ezra 7:6).43

This is an extraordinary claim; the ruler of the known world is said to have granted the wishes of a scribe from a minor ethnic group. The issue is not the fact that Artaxerxes granted Ezra’s requests, the point is that the king of Persia is depicted to be a full-fledged guarantor of Ezra’s plans. In the author’s presentation, the king has no idea that Ezra is endorsed by YHWH, but this is the central reason why the king adheres to the scribe’s requests. This is made clear in the second half of 7:6, “for the hand of God was upon him [Ezra].” All of Ezra’s good fortunes

shows comparison or corresponding relationships,44 כ were YHWH’s doing. As the preposition the text indicates that the king’s generosity towards an insignificant scribe from an insignificant people group was guaranteed by YHWH. In the words of Williamson, “what appears at one

does not necessarily suggest every possible request, it does ( לֹכּ ) ”Although the word “all 43 suggest that Artaxerxes accepted more than a simple request (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 105).

44 Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Syntax, 109.

101 level to be the bountiful grant of the Persian king turns out to be merely a channel through which the bounty of the King of Kings reaches his people.”45

Hieke entertains the possibility that Ezra’s desire to implement the law was promoted largely by the Persian kings.46 This debate concerning imperial authorisation will be discussed below. But on a preliminary note, while Hieke’s proposal is certainly possible, the narrative does not disclose the story in such a way. Instead, YHWH and Ezra are portrayed as the initiators of implementing the law. There is no indication within Ezra 7:1–10 that the Persian king or his counterparts played any role in Ezra’s desire to legislate the law in Jerusalem. The character who has been sanctioned by the divine is Ezra, not Artaxerxes.

5.2.4. Imputed Ideas At the end of Ezra 7, we find a doxological reflection from Ezra,

Blessed be the LORD, the God of our ancestors, who put such a thing as this into the heart of the king to glorify the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, and who extended to me steadfast love before the king and his counselors, and before the king’s mighty officers. I took courage, for the hand of the LORD my God was upon me, and I gathered leaders from Israel to go up with me (Ezra 7:27–28).

This reflection reveals a number of significant representations of King Artaxerxes. The representations of Artaxerxes are interconnected with the concept of YHWH’s sovereignty.

The change of heart of the king, his counsellors, and his officers are all a result of YHWH.

Within this reflection, Artaxerxes is not presented as a figure who had originally been in favour

45 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 93.

46 Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 128.

102 of the legislation of the Torah in Jerusalem. The divine needed to implant certain desires into the king and his court.

The initial words of the doxology give all credit for the good turn of events to YHWH,

“Blessed be the LORD, the God of our ancestors, who put such a thing as this into the heart of the king…” (Ezra 7:27). These few words contain a noteworthy statement; Ezra indicates that

YHWH “put such as thing as this into the heart of the king.” Japhet has argued that vv. 27–28 describes the kindness of the king of Persia.47 And this may indeed be true. Artaxerxes may, in fact, have been kind in his dealings with the community. The focus in the text, however, lies

into the heart of the king. The ( תאֹזָכּ ) ”such a thing as this“ ( ןַתָנ ) ”on the subject who “put phrase “such a thing as this,” while ambiguous, most likely refers to the content of Artaxerxes’ letter from 7:11. Thus, what is being said is that YHWH imputed ideas into the heart of the king. This claim, that YHWH affixed thoughts into the mind of the ruler of the world, is a substantial yet unsurprising one. As Fensham notes,

In these two verses [vv. 27–28] the historical approach to the religion of Israel is again clearly discernible. As God from ancient times has influenced foreign kings to do his will, he now influences the Persian king to grant favourable conditions for the adornment of the temple.48

The reader should carefully assess the representations of Artaxerxes through the theological reflections of Ezra. In the representation found in the narrative, YHWH is the one who had placed desires into the heart of the king who initially wanted to thwart YHWH’s plans.

At the same time, Artaxerxes is portrayed to be a king who is influenced by YHWH to reverse

47 Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 74.

48 Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, 109.

103 his own decree against the building of Jerusalem by glorifying it through the legislation of the law. It is important here to recognize that the author portrays Artaxerxes as an individual who was initially against the plans of the returnees. There is no redemption story like

Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 where Artaxerxes comes to his own senses about who the “King of heaven” was (Dan 4:37). It is not until YHWH intervenes and places an idea in Artaxerxes that things begin to change.

5.2.5. Ezra’s Role Ezra 7 opens by introducing Ezra, who not only has an impressive priestly heritage (Ezra 7:1–

5), but also has a quality skillset as a “scribe” (7:6). The meaning of Ezra’s occupation as a

“scribe” has caused some debate. Such a profession was important in the Persian era, so the biblical text may offer some insight into the period. Moreover, because the role of a scribe is found in extra-biblical sources in the Persian period, some scholars have sought to find parallels.

However, it will become apparent that the biblical account of Ezra’s scribal role is uniquely tied to the Law of Moses not to the Persian empire. This is a fascinating construction of Ezra’s identity in light of the Persian context. In the narrative, Ezra was first and foremost a scholar in the law of Moses and his intention was to legislate and cultivate knowledge of the law in

Jerusalem.

5.2.5.1. Extra-Biblical Considerations

The first subject of interest is Ezra’s impressive pedigree (cf., Ezra 7:1–6). Koch places emphasis on Ezra’s heritage in 7:1–6 and maintains that he was a high priest.49 Ezra 7:5 does seem to indicate that Ezra’s status was something greater than a priest as it goes back to the

49 Koch, however, admits that there is no explicit reference of Ezra as high priest (Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 [1974]: 190–92).

104 עַרֶז שֶׁדֹקַּה ) ”high priest Aaron. Also, the heightened sense of responsibility to keep Israel “holy

[Ezra 9:2]) can be paralleled with Aaron’s duty according to Exod 28:36–38.50 In the words of

Eskenazi, “His [Ezra] priestly credentials are impeccable.”51 The narrative, however, presents the priestly side of Ezra as a subsidiary role compared to his scribal role and activity. In fact, once Ezra enters into Jerusalem his involvement with priestly duties in the active temple is little to none.52 Additionally, Ezra is explicitly identified as a scribe of the law (e.g., Ezra 7:5,

10). Therefore, to identify Ezra primarily as a high priest is tenuous since a greater focus is placed on his scribal role over his priestly role.

Using extra-biblical parallels, Schaeder has argued that Ezra was a Persian official who bore the responsibility for “Jewish affairs.”53 Schaeder understood the rescript’s address of

Ezra as “scribe of the law of the God of heaven” in 7:12 to correspond to an official position in the imperial court.54 The deficiency with this position is that there is no analogy for Ezra’s title in extra-biblical texts.55 Despite this Schaeder finds an analogy with reš galuta in the

50 “You shall make a rosette of pure gold, and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the LORD’” (Exod. 28:36). Noted by Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” 192.

51 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 63. Blenkinsopp believes the likelihood of the whole genealogy to be fictitious, yet at the same time notes, “If the genealogy is to be considered to be at all historical, he must have stood in the collateral line of descent” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988], 136).

52 Mark Leuchter, “Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 175–76. Moreover, in the comprehensive list in Neh 11:3–12:26, Ezra is merely described as “the priest Ezra, the scribe” (Neh 12:26).

53 Otherwise known as the “commissioner for Jewish Affairs” (H. H. Schaeder, Esra Der Schreiber, BHT 5 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930], 39–60).

54 Also, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 136–38. However, the narrative of Ezra 7–10 and the lack of Persian evidence does not allow for a conclusive answer (Becking, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity, 47).

55 Lester L. Grabbe, “What was Ezra’s Mission,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 294.

105 Sassanian empire. However, the problem with such an analogy is its anachronism. The

Sassanian empire existed much later than even the latest dating of the Book of Ezra-

Nehemiah.56 Moreover, Schaeder divorces the contents of Artaxerxes’ letter and the narrative segments. As Grabbe notes,

Schaeder has to suppose that the identity of Ezra’s office in the decree is different from that in the rest of the EM (cf. 7:6, 10–11), where the emphasis is on Ezra’s knowledge of the Torah.57

If we were to isolate the content of Artaxerxes’ decree and the other sections of Ezra, then

Schaeder’s proposal may be appropriate. However, if we account for the whole narrative,

Schaeder’s position is unwarranted.

Blenkinsopp has noticed an attractive parallel between Udjahorresnet, Ezra, and

Nehemiah.58 The autobiographical inscription tells of Udjahorresnet himself being many things including a physician and a scribe. To Blenkinsopp’s knowledge, there are also good reasons to assume that Udjahorresnet belonged to the priestly class.59 Like Ezra, he was both a scribe and perhaps a priest. Most of Blenkinsopp’s most formidable parallels, however, are with

Nehemiah rather than Ezra.60 Moreover, legitimate scepticism can be made with regards to the lengths to which one should go to with these analogies. Even in Blenkinsopp’s own analysis,

56 A late date for Ezra-Nehemiah is somewhere in the early Hellenistic period (around 300 B.C.E) (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, xxxv). The rise of the Sassanian Empire is thought to be 224–40 C.E. (see, Beate Dignas and Engelbert Winter, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity Neighbours and Rivals [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007], 18–19).

57 Grabbe, “What Was Ezra’s Mission?,” 294.

58 Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Mission of Udjahorresnet,” JBL 106 (1987): 409–21.

59 Blenkinsopp, “Mission of Udjahorresnet,” 409.

60 Grabbe, “What Was Ezra’s Mission?,” 294.

106 “[s]tylistically the Ezra material is much less close to the type of autobiographical inscription under consideration.”61 Udjahorresnet was an admiral of the Egyptian army who sided with the

Persians in one of Cambyses’ conquests. Ezra, on the other hand, is not a warrior and lacks the admiral-like temperament to force people into submission (e.g., Ezra 10:1).

These extra-biblical analogies are helpful comparisons for the study of Ezra-Nehemiah.

Both Schaeder and Blenkinsopp have added knowledge towards a greater understanding of

Yehud under Persian rule. Nevertheless, although these analogies are helpful, they are not fully persuasive due to the weak parallels. These weak parallels may exist because the narrative of

Ezra-Nehemiah focuses upon Ezra’s role as a scribe of the law of Moses and not the Persian empire.

5.2.5.2. The Sepīru and Ezra-Nehemiah

Ezra’s occupation as a scribe has some consistencies with the historical function of the occupation in the Achaemenid rule. The sepīru played a significant role in both the Neo-

Babylonian and Achaemenid administration. The references to sepīru in the Achaemenid texts are mostly found in witness lists.62 Scribes worked as witnesses to economic transactions.63

Zilberg also points to Amherst 258, a Babylonian tablet,64 as an indication that a sepīru could be among the high officials or at least be working with them as translators.65 Moreover, the

61 Blenkinsopp, “Mission of Udjahorresnet,” 417.

62 See, L. E. Pearce, “Sepīru and lúA.BA: Scribes of the Late First Millennium,” in Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm RAI 42, ed. K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet, OLA 96 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 357.

63 L. E. Pearce, “Sepīru and lúA.BA: Scribes of the Late First Millennium,” 357–58.

64 See, Arthur Ungnad, “Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst,” Archiv für Orientforschung 19 (1959): 74-82.

65 Zilberg, “From dragomans to Babel,” 199–200.

107 role of a sepīru was not limited to witnessing and translating. Zilberg demonstrates that the sepīru-scribes were also responsible for spreading royal decrees and propaganda to the

Aramaic-speaking populations.66

Ezra’s role as a “scribe” does have some parallels with the sepīru in the Achaemenid period. Ezra is commissioned by King Artaxerxes to spread royal statements (Ezra 7:11–25) and Artaxerxes commissions him to make “inquiries” about Judah and Jerusalem “according to the law of your God, which is in your hand” (7:14). Moreover, the Persian king commands

Ezra to punish those who do not obey the king’s and God’s laws (7:25). Ezra’s role as a scribe described in the letters is similar to that of a sepīru in the Persian empire with undeniable tinges of Israelite theology.

Ezra’s motivations are also revealed, “For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the

LORD, and to do it, and to teach the statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). Laird makes a point with regard to the similar phrasing in Ezra 7:9, proposing that in 7:10, “Ezra’s exceptional skill in Torah leads to God’s favour manifest in royal benevolence and successful

Such sentiments are 68. יִכּ journey to Jerusalem.”67 This is all manifested through the particle shared by Shepherd and Wright who argue that the presence of God is a “reflection or result of his [Ezra] engagement with the Torah.”69 As a point of characterisation, this is perhaps the

66 Zilberg points to DB (§70) 4:89–92 which reads, “this inscription that I have made, in Aryan, on clay and parchment it was written” (Zilberg, “From dragomans to Babel,” 200). This inscription describes the use of parchment to write and spread royal statements.

67 Donna Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 291.

[ יִכּ ] the gracious hand of his God was upon him. For [ יִכּ ] Laird translates Ezra 7:10 as, “for 68 Ezra had set his heart to study [to seek] the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach the statutes and ordinances” (Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 291).

69 Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 31; Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 101.

108 most important element of Ezra’s character. Ezra gains YHWH’s favour because he had set his mission to study, do, and teach the law in Jerusalem.

.to study”) in Ezra 7:10 has led to some disagreements“) שרד The meaning of the verb

The verb commonly indicates inquiry of an oracle through a medium or a prophet of YHWH,70 for example, seeking an oracle from foreign gods (e.g., Ex 18:15; Deut 12:30), from the deceased (e.g., 1 Sam 28:7; Isa 8:19), or from a prophet of YHWH (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:8; Ezek

20:3). Thus, a more general translation would be “to seek.”71 Fried arrives at the conclusion that the Torah has become an “oracular device; a medium through which God may be

Ezra 7:10)is found only in 2) ןיִכֵה וֹבָבְל שׁוֹרְדִל accessed.”72 Pakkala notes that the entire phrase

Chronicles (2 Chr 12:14; 19:3; 30:19).73 Yet, the object is different in Ezra. In 2 Chronicles the

( רוֹתּ תַ ְ י וה ָ ה ) ”whilst Ezra 7:10 has “the law of YHWH ( םיִהלֱאָה ) or God ( הָוהְי ) object is YHWH as the object. Pakkala then concludes that “[o]ne seeks answers from Yahweh by studying and investigating the Torah.”74 Between Fried and Pakkala’s assessments, the latter is the more convicing. The emphasis in the narrative is on Ezra’s treatment of the law as a means to understand the ways of YHWH.

70 Lisbeth S. Fried, “The Torah of God as God,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, ed. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 293, 293 n.31.

71 R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, 1992), 624.

72 Fried, “The Torah of God as God,” 293. Her conclusion, however, does not stop with Ezra 7:10 but continues to Neh. 8:5–6, which in turn takes a step further than her initial conclusion: “[Torah] has been exalted into the physical sign of Yhwh himself” (294).

73 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 31.

74 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 31. Pakkala (31 n.34) also notes Fishbane who comes to a similar conclusion of Ezra 7:10, “is a precise reworking of an ancient formula used to indicate oracular activity” (Michael A. Fishbane, The Garments of Torah. Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics [Bloomington; Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992], 66).

109 For Ezra, as a scribe of Persia, to not look to propagate Persian propaganda and instead promulgate the Law of YHWH is a subversion of the Persian system. The narrative creates a rather unprecedented scenario where a scribe has little to no interest in obeying the king’s orders. As it was noted earlier, the general role of a scribe was to propagate royal propaganda or royal commands. But Ezra, on the other hand, seeks to legislate YHWH’s laws. There is no indication in the narrative that Ezra desired to do what the king demanded. It will also become clear that Ezra does not enact the demands of the king in the later chapters.

The narrative also makes it clear that Ezra, although having the occupation of a Persian scribe, is primarily a scribe of the law of Moses. This is seen in the repetition in Ezra 7:11,

“…the priest Ezra, the scribe, a scholar of the text of the commandments of the LORD and his

Here Ezra is called 75.( אָרְזֶﬠ ןֵהֹכַּה רֵפֹסַּה רֵפֹס יֵרְבִדּ הָוהְי־תוְֹצִמ ויָקֻּחְ ו לֵאָרְשִׂי־לַﬠ ) ”statutes for Israel a “priest” and a “scribe.” He is a legitimate candidate to handle the law by his lineage and also

רֵפֹסַּה ,his role as a priest. It has been argued that text repeats his skillset in an awkward way

and thus, should be considered to be a secondary addition.76 However, the (7:11) פֹס רֵ רְבִ דּ יֵרב repetition can also function as an accentuation of Ezra’s occupation as a scribe of YHWH.77

75 While the focus continues to be on Ezra’s role as a scribe of the law, Ezra 7:11 differentiates itself by leaving out what could be said to be the necessary vocabulary. As Rendtorff adequately put it, “Auffallend bleibt aber das Fehlen des Wortes tora” (Rolf Rendtorff, “Esra und Das ‘Gesetz,’” ZAW however, is purposeful. After establishing Ezra as a , רוֹת הַ The absence of the word .(176 :[1984] 96 skilled scribe (cf., 7:6), the narrative expands on his proficiency as a scribe who was skilled “in the ויָקֻּחְו ־לַﬠ ) ”and “the statutes of Israel ([7:11] יֵרְבִדּ הָוהְי־תוְֹצִמ ) ”words of the commandments of God Ezra is skilled in both the “words/letter” of the commandments and the “statutes” which .([7:11] לֵאָרְשִׂי govern Israel, a specific descriptor of Ezra’s ability.

awkward and thus consider it as a secondary רֵפֹסַּה רֵפֹס Some have found this repetition 76 addition (for example, Schaeder, Esra Der Schreiber, 50; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 98). We could also understand the repetition as a tool for accentuating Ezra’s occupation as a scribe of YHWH. רֵפֹסַּה However, the Masoretic punctuation, with the atnach on the first word indicates that the first word is Ezra’s title, as opposed to the verb, and it is not identical to the following word.

77 The reader should also note that Ezra 7:11 is not part of the letter and is written as a note by the omniscient narrator marked clearly by remaining in the Hebrew language. Once the actual decree begins, the language shifts to the Aramaic.

110 This seems to be how the Masoretic punctuation interprets the text; Ezra’s title as a priestly scribe and the activity of a scribe are distinguished.

If we compare this representation of a scribe in Ezra against the Egyptian representations of Udjahoresnet as a scribe, we have some important distinctions. The scribe

Udjahoresnet is paralleled to the Sepīru. He propagates the Persian royal propaganda. Ezra, on the other hand, is different. He is a scribe who wants to propagate the law of God and not of the kings. The narrative shows that a tension exists between Ezra being a scribe of the Persian king and a scribe of God. While the Persian king is depicted to want one thing, the protagonist wants something else. There is a disconnect between the emperor and his subject because that subject has other motivations.

Hence, the narrative values Ezra’s role as a scribe of the Law of Moses over being a scribe of Persia. It portrays Ezra as an individual who cares more for the propagation of the law in Jerusalem rather than Persian royal propaganda. Unlike the normal role of a scribe of

Persia, Ezra’s desires are disconnected from the monarch and as we see in due course, Ezra’s actions are also disconnected from the king of Persia.

5.2.6. Excurses: Briefly on The Imperial Authorisation of the Law The theory dubbed “imperial authorization” by Peter Frei posits that the “Torah” was, in fact, authorised by Persia.78 Certainly, as Lee observes, the Persian empire had an “open-minded and utilitarian attitude toward the empire’s religious diversity, they easily came into contact with the nations’ elite individuals…at the local sanctuaries.”79 Frei’s theory may indeed be

78 Peter Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich,” in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, ed. Peter Frei and Klaus Koch, 2nd ed., OBO 55 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1996), 8–113

79 Kyong-Jin Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period, CBET 64 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 255–56.

111 correct.80 The Persian empire, perhaps, should be attributed to be authoriser of the Torah in

Jerusalem. However, the question which the present study seeks to answer is whether the narrative presents it this way. In the forthcoming discussion, it will become apparent that Ezra-

Nehemiah avoids the perception that Artaxerxes had any hand in the authorisation of YHWH’s law.

In her study of imperial authorisation, Lee correctly observes, “[t]he writer of Ezra 7 omits any commentary on the political value of Persia’s westernmost territory or the central government’s stake in it.”81 Not only does the author omit Persia’s political value, he makes it abundantly clear that Artaxerxes’ generosity stemmed from YHWH’s provision. Ezra 7:6 says that the king granted everything Ezra’s requested “for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him” (7:6). The depiction of the events is rather counterintuitive; the leader of the greatest empire of the world would not be adhering to all that a foreign official asks. Eskenazi summarises it well by saying, “The empire is subjected to the wishes of the Judahite official.”82

Such a portrayal strays far from attributing the authorisation of the law to Artaxerxes.

Moreover, there remains a subtlety within the narrative which diminishes the possibility of Artaxerxes as the establisher of the law. Before any information or clarity is given concerning Artaxerxes’ commissioning of Ezra, the narrative before the rescript indicates that the law was taken to Jerusalem by Ezra who was sanctioned by YHWH. The first piece of

80 For further discussions surrounding imperial authorization see, Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 345–56; Kenneth G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). For a more recent treatment of the topic see, Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period.

81 Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period, 23 (emphasis mine). Lee also contrasts the biblical account with the Egyptian codification of the law which asserts that the mission to legislate law was the Persian king’s idea (24).

82 Eskenazi, “Imagining the Other in the Construction of Judahite Identity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 244.

112 this Ezra) אוּה זֶ ﬠ רְ אָ לָ ﬠ הָ בִּ מ בָ ֶ ל ,evidence is found in the awkwardly phrased Hebrew sentence went up from Babylonia [7:6]).83 The awkward syntax highlights Ezra’s journey from Babylon to Jerusalem. Before his official commissioning by Artaxerxes, the narrative already reveals that Ezra will certainly arrive in Jerusalem. Moreover, the narrative reveals that Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem “on the first day of the fifth month” (7:9), all because of “the gracious hand” of YHWH. Additionally, Ezra’s successful journey is credited to YHWH because Ezra had set his sights to study, teach, and do the law in Israel (7:10).

It, therefore, cannot be made any clearer that the narrative attributes the transfer to

Jerusalem of both law and a skilled scribe of the law to YHWH. The reader knows that Ezra will arrive in Jerusalem to teach the law because of God’s favour even before Artaxerxes’ commissions Ezra to have the law established in Jerusalem.

5.2.7. Summary A number of points can be concluded from the observations above. Firstly, Artaxerxes is presented to have a number of mixed agendas behind legislating the law in Jerusalem.

Establishing a law in Jerusalem was thought, by the king, to help to prolong his rule. Ultimately, however, Artaxerxes never intended to allow YHWH’s laws to exist independently of Persia’s laws in Jerusalem. The returned people are still living under the yoke of a foreign king.

Secondly, the God of Israel is given all the accolades for Artaxerxes’ desire to help legislate the law. Artaxerxes, at the end of the day, needed prodding from YHWH, thus the king of

Persia is a mere instrument in YHWH’s plans. Thirdly, Ezra’s identity in the narrative is as a scribe endorsed by YHWH. His primary goal is to legislate the law of God in Jerusalem. This

83 Fried notices the awkward syntax where the verb is usually at the beginning of the sentence or in second position (Fried, Ezra, 297).

113 is remarkably different from the extra-biblical parallels where scribes are closely knit with the

Persian Empire. Ezra, on the other hand, is a scribe closely tied with the God of Israel. Fourthly, while arguments that Persia authorised the law in Yehud may have some cogency, the narrative of Ezra 7–10 does not allow for such a conclusion. Historically, it may have been the case that imperial authorisation of the law had implications on the legislation of the law in Yehud, but the narrative sees the cause behind the legislation of the law in Jerusalem to be an act of God.

5.3. ARTAXERXES IN EZRA 8

Ezra 8 progresses from the decree of Artaxerxes to the actual journey that Ezra takes to

Jerusalem. Even though the narrative moves away from Artaxerxes’ letters, Artaxerxes’ influence in Jerusalem is still present. The reader arrives to the text wondering whether Ezra implement will the law of Persia and the law of YHWH in Jerusalem. What will become evident is that the narrative reduces the king’s influence in both Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem and also the legislation of the law in Jerusalem.

5.3.1. Divine Protection Over Persian Protection By the time of Darius I, there were royal roads that were “safe to travel by, as it never leaves inhabited country.”84 This quote by Herodotus speaks of the road between Sardis to Susa; a road that was approximately 1200 miles. These royal roads were easy ways for armies to be resupplied, but their use necessitated official authorisation.85 A principal route was built from near Assyria on the west of the Euphrates down through Jerusalem to Egypt. It is possible to

84 Herodotus Hist. 5.52

85 Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 364;

114 consider a journey on these roads, having sanction and protection, to be the best possible travel option for any traveller.

Ezra 8 reflects the reality of royal roads during the Persian rule. Although Ezra had received permission to return to Jerusalem, the journey there was still before him. Yet in a narrative which has already boasted that Ezra received all that he requested from the king (cf.,

Ezra 7:6), Ezra forfeits the opportunity to request safe passage to Jerusalem. His reasoning is,

For I was ashamed to ask the king for a named of soldiers and cavalry to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king that the hand of our God is gracious to all who seek him, but his power and his wrath are against all who forsake him (Ezra 8:22).

Ezra is portrayed as seeking to verify his claim to the king. In other words, to show the king of

Persia who really supplies a safe passage to Jerusalem, Ezra relinquishes his opportunity to ask for protection.86 Given the sheer number of valuable goods that were being transported (cf.,

7:15–20), Grabbe considers Ezra’s refusal to be completely unrealistic. 87 This unrealistic element seems to intentional, however. By refusing to ask for protection, it allows for two things: granted the journey’s success, it (1) reiterates Ezra’s claim that protection comes from

YHWH, and (2) denies the possibility of the Persian king having a stake in the safe passage to

Jerusalem. So, instead of requesting military protection, Ezra proclaims a fast (8:21) and requests protection from YHWH (8:23).

;which can mean “to be ashamed of” or “to linger שוב is derived from the root יִתְּשֹׁב The verb 86 to tarry.” In light of the fact that Ezra is depicted to be a resolute character, preference should be given to the first use of the verb (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 126).

87 Lester L. Grabbe, “Penetrating the Legend; In Quest for the Historical Ezra,” in Open- Mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Marjo C. A. Korpel, LHBOTS 616 (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 97–98.

115 Ezra 8:31–34 marks the end of Ezra and his party’s journey to Jerusalem. This end segment of the journey reiterates the divine protection that YHWH provided as it supplies the reader with the knowledge that YHWH listened to their prayers. Ezra 8:31 expands on the details, “the hand of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the hand of the enemy and from ambushes along the way.” The passage alludes to 8:22 and confirms Ezra’s claim to the king. Thus, Ezra and his band are depicted as those who sought after YHWH and received his protection.

Grabbe and Becking describe Ezra 8:31 as a “theological treatise” rather than a travel report.88 There is no chronological recounting or vivid description of the events but there is an emphasis on the guiding hand of God through the journey to Jerusalem (8:31). If we combine this observation with Ezra’s refusal of Persian protection in 8:22, then we can observe a reiteration in the narrative: while not having Persia’s protection YHWH brought Ezra and his group safely into Jerusalem.

Ezra 8:22 is a picture of one group of repatriated community safely entering Jerusalem without the help of the Persian king. It is transparent that the king’s help was actively avoided in order to prove that YHWH could give the party a safe passage. The political message is made clear: protection comes from YHWH and not Artaxerxes.

5.3.2. Loanwords and a Brief Third Person Detour In a narrative where the majority of the story is written in the first person, Ezra 8:35–36 stands out as it suddenly transitions into the third person,

At that time those who had come from captivity, the returned exiles offered burnt offering to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and as a sin offering twelve male goats; all this was a

88 Grabbe, Penetrating the Legend, 97; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 130.

116 burnt offering to the LORD. They also delivered the king’s commissions to the king’s satraps and to the governors of the province Beyond the River; and they supported the people and the house of God

The third person shift is not the only glaring peculiarity within these two verses. Alongside the

;(law) ” תָדּ “ third person narrative, three loanwords are utilised rather unexpectedly: The Persian

-governors). These loan) ” תוֹוֲחַפ “ satraps); and the Akkadian) ” יֵנְפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא “ the Old Persian words require some attention as a rhetorical purpose can be observed.

To begin, I will survey the three loanwords from a linguistical standpoint and also their usage within Ezra-Nehemiah. Subsequently, I will discuss the rhetorical effects of using these loan words.

( תָדּ ) ”Law“ .5.3.2.1

is a clear loanword from the Persian data- found both in Biblical Aramaic and תָדּ The word

;mostly to indicate Persian law (e.g., Esth 1:5 תָדּ Hebrew.89 The book of Esther seems to use

refers תָדּ ,but not exclusively (Esth 3:8. Cf., Dan 6:5).90 In the case of Ezra 8:36 ,(8:17 ;2:8 specifically to Artaxerxes’ law. This can be inferred from two reasons. Firstly, this is the only

to indicate law, thus a sense of foreignness is תָדּ instance within Ezra where the Hebrew uses

albeit in— ( תָדּ ) ”and “law ( ךֶלֶמּ ) ”evoked. Secondly, the only other time the two words “king

אָתָדּ ־יִד ) ”Aramaic—appear together is in 7:26: “the law of your God and the law of the king

.These reasons suggest that Artaxerxes’ or Persian law is in mind .( ךָהָלֱא אָתָדְ ו יִ דּ אָכְּלַמ

89 Maximillian Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament (London: Lowe & Brydone, 1957), 61.

90 Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 174.

117 in ” יֵתָדּ ךֶלֶמַּה “ Fensham, alongside many English translations, have rendered the phrase

Ezra 8:36 as “instructions” or “commissions” of the king.91 These translations are not adequate, however, for throughout the Hebrew and the Aramaic sections of Ezra-Nehemiah, the text is concerned with legislations and legal codes, not general instructions. This is not to say that there cannot be nuances found in each usage, 92 yet these translations do not take into consideration of the parallel made between 8:36 and 7:26. Therefore, a translation that is closer to the ideology of the narrative would be “the (Persian) laws of the king.”

As was mentioned in the previous section, Ezra 7:26 educes negative connotations as it was Artaxerxes’ attempt to amalgamate Israelite and Persian laws. In 8:36, the narrative appropriates the concept in the Hebrew by preserving the highly used Persian loanword from the Aramaic in the rescript. The narrative itself also indicates that these “laws of the king” were

”.to the “governors and satraps ( ןתנ ) ”never introduced into Jerusalem but merely “delivered

( ָפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ן) ”Satraps“ .5.3.2.2

is likely derived from the Old Persian, xšaçapāvan-, “satrap.”93 The book ָפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ן The noun

officials) (Dan 6:1–2), but Ezra 8:36) ןיִכְרָס of Daniel thinks that the satraps were under the

At least for this study, the .(” יֵנְפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ךֶלֶמַּה “) only mentions that they were the king’s satraps

91 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 120. The NRSV, ESV, and the KJV have “commissions” and the NIV has “orders.” The CSB, on the other hand, has the better translation “edict.”

,in Ezra 7:26 is used differently to 7:12 (Jacob L. Wright תָדּ Wright has observed that 92 “Seeking, Finding and Writing in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008], 286 n.33).

93 Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 123; Ellenbogan, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 23.

118 ranking of these satraps is not vital, but rather their importance is because of whom they served: the king of Persia.

( תוֹוֲחַפ ) ”Governors“ .5.3.2.3

is best explained as a loan in Aramaic from Akkadian (pāḫutu), which then תוֹוֲחַפ The noun passed onto Hebrew.94 This loanword appears quite frequently in Nehemiah (e.g., 2:7; 3:7;

5:14), but in Ezra it is used only once in the Hebrew (8:36) and a number of times in the

which is usually used in , ֶפ ָחה Aramaic segments (5:3, 6, 14; 6:6, 13). However, the noun conjunction with “Beyond the River” indicates a foreigner. Tattenai is “the governor of the

Ezra 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13]) and he is not part of the] תַחַפּ הָרֲהַנ־רַבֲﬠ ) ”province Beyond the River

Judean enclave.

5.3.2.4. The Rhetorical Effect of Loanwords in Ezra 8:36

stand out by virtue ( תוֹוֲחַפ ) ”and “governors ,( יֵנְפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ) ”satraps“ ,( תָדּ ) ”All three nouns “law of being loanwords, yet their distinction is intensified due to their limited usage in Ezra-

in the Hebrew segments is only used here in 8:36, and although ָפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ן and תָדּ .Nehemiah

is found in various places in Nehemiah, this is the only occurance in Ezra. This תוֹוֲחַפ concentrated use of loanwords in the Hebrew text is more than coincidence. Ezra 8:36 stands as the end of Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem and it is written in the third person. Moreover, from the literary context, the narrative alludes to Artaxerxes’ command in 7:26 to legislate the law

94 See, Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 162.

119 of God and the law of the king.95 The question is whether Ezra is depicted as obeying the king’s commands.

refer to? It was יֵתָדּ ךֶלֶמַּה First, we must interpret the content of Ezra 8:36; what does

The explicit . אָתָד יִדּ אָכְּלַמ ,was in Ezra 7:26 יֵתָדּ ךֶלֶמַּה argued above that the closest referent to use of a loanword and the linguistic parallel warrants the parallel. If this is the case, we have evidence that the community never introduced Persian law in Jerusalem. Ezra 8:36 says that

“They [the community] also delivered the king’s law [Persian law] to the king’s satraps and to the governors of the province Beyond the River…” In other words, the foreign laws of

Artaxerxes were given to the foreign delegates of Artaxerxes. It is clearly repeated that “the

Also, the .( יֵנְפְּרַדְּשַׁחֲא ךֶלֶמַּה ) ”were given to “the king’s satraps ( יֵתָדּ ךֶלֶמַּה ) ”king’s laws

as indicated above, are ,( תוֹוֲחַפ רֶבֵﬠ רָהָנַּה ) ”governors of the province Beyond the River“ foreigners.

The text contains a rather elaborate arrangement in order to lessen Artaxerxes’ influence in the city of Jerusalem. By using the loanwords found prominently in the Aramaic segments of Ezra in the Hebrew sections, the narrative distinguishes which exact law was given to whom. In Ezra 8:36, the foreign laws of Artaxerxes were given to the foreign administration of Artaxerxes and the unstated premise is that these foreign laws were not legislated in the land of Israel.

95 While Ezra 7:26 does not explicitly state that the Persian king’s laws were to be legislated, it is assumed in the statement. Indeed, the law of YHWH needed to be established due to its absence in the province, yet the law of the king was a law which already existed as long as a province was under the auspices of the Persian empire. But the author envisions Artaxerxes’ law to be a newly developed law. It gave Ezra authority to legislate law and whoever went against Ezra would incur a punishment prescribed by Persian law. I have already argued that this decree by Artaxerxes is problematic for the Israelite reader, but it is worthwhile noting the implicit notion that Artaxerxes is indeed wanting the Persian law to be legislated also.

120 This, however, is not to say that everything Artaxerxes’ commanded was rejected.

Becking astutely notes that the act of sacrifices, “is an implementation of the mission of the

Persian king in 7:17.” 96 It would be incorrect, however, to claim that sacrifices were exclusively demanded by the Persian king. Making sacrifices is a ritual that is embedded within the Israelite tradition (cf., Ezra 3:2). When the demands of the Persian king and the laws of

God overlap, then the community proceed to obey the commands. However, the text implies that the implementation of Persian law in the land of Jerusalem is a reality that should be avoided. By using specific loanwords, the narrative indicates that Ezra and the community did not legislate Persian law in Jerusalem but gave them to foreign administrators. This action is not in accordance to Artaxerxes’ demands in Ezra 7:25–26.

In summary, Artaxerxes’ influence is reduced through an elaborate arrangement of loanwords. Additionally, there is no mention in the text that Ezra legislated the king’s laws in

Jerusalem. All Ezra did was to handover the foreign laws of Persia to foreign administrators.

5.4. ARTAXERXES IN EZRA 9

5.4.1. Ezra’s Prayer The function of the prayer in Ezra 9:5–15 is none other than to require both YHWH and the community to act.97 Within this prayer we find reflections upon the regressive trajectory of

96 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 132.

97 Van Grol argues that the entire passage has a dual function of a prayer to YHWH and a sermon to the people (Harm W. M. van Grol, “Exegesis of the Exile — Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6–9,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. De Moor, OtSt 40 [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 31–61. See also, Idem, “Schuld und Scham: die Verwurzelung von Esra 9,6–7 in der Tradition,” EstBib 55 [1997]: 29–52; Idem, “‘Indeed, We Are Servants We Are’: Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared,” in Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post- Exlic Times, ed. Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 210). The sermonic elements are: (1) Ezra speaks of God in the third-person (9:7); (2) the words of the prophets which are spoken in the second person (9:11–12); (3) The rhetorical questions of Ezra that address the Israelites

121 Israel’s history due to their disobedience. Ezra displays great distress as he sees the consequence of disobedience, but also their great shame before the surrounding nations. The final part of the prayer is perhaps the most depressing element of the narrative, for Ezra reveals his own uncertainty of Israel’s future. The sin of the people and their shame before God have caused an uncertain future.

5.4.1.1. The Persian Rule: A Consequence of Disobedience

One of the clearest examples of dissatisfaction concerning the Persian rule is found in the

we, our kings, and our priests ( בוּ ﬠַ ֲ וֹ ֹנ ֵ ת י נ וּ ) beginning of Ezra’s prayer, “and for our iniquities have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case” (Ezra 9:7).98 For Ezra, living under a foreign rule was a result of disobedience. This perception of the reality is a negative reflection of the Persian empire. Living under the rule of Artaxerxes is not a blessing, it is, in fact, a result of sin.

in Ezra 9:9 shows appreciation of the ( םיִדָבֲﬠ ) ”Duggan has suggested that “slaves

Persian rule.99 In other words, being slaves under the Persian rule should be conceived to be positive since their being under Persian rule resulted in the repair of the temple. However, 9:9 insinuates that it was despite Persia’s rule that the temple was repaired: “but in our slavery our

”Moreover, YHWH is said to have “extended .( וּנֵתֻדְבַﬠְב אֹל וּנָבָזֲﬠ וּניֵהלֱא ) ”God did not forsake us

more than God; and finally (4) the last sentence describes the plight of the returned community. Indeed, the identification of prayer is self-evident through the confession of personal embarrassment and evil deeds (Ezra 9:6, 13). At the end of v.4, Ezra makes it clear that some returnees “gathered around me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice” (Ezra 9:4) and thus marks the prayer as not merely an instrument for securing a vertical response (i.e., from YHWH) but also a horizontal response (i.e., from the people).

.should be understood causally ” ועבו יתנ נ ו “ 98

99 Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72B–10:40), 129.

122 before the kings of Persia, thus resulting in the repair of the ( דסח ) ”his “steadfast love ( טיו ) house of God. The opposite scenario—if YHWH did not show love—is presumed to result in an alternative reality: no opportunity to set up the house of God and a wall for protection (cf.,

Ezra 9:9).

Ezra’s claim that Persia’s rule over Israel is due to sin suggests a negative perception

is an effort ([9:7] יֵכְלַמ תוֹצָרֲאָה ) ”of Persia. The non-specific reference to “the kings of the lands to amalgamate the previous kings into one conglomerate. As was mentioned earlier in reference to Ezra 6:22, Assyria is perceived as a brutal nation in the HB and the narrative amalgamates

Assyrian and Persian rule together. A similar point seems to be in view here.100 The phrase

with both nouns plural is unique to Ezra 9:7 but is likely ( יֵכְלַמ תוֹצָרֲאָה ) ”kings of the lands“

which is used seven times in the ( יֵכְלַמ ץֶראָָה ) ”synonymous to the phrase “kings of the land

HB.101 This more common phrase refers to Israel’s success over their enemies (Josh 12:1, 7; 1

Kgs 4:34; 10:23; 12:34; 2 Chr 9:22) or YHWH’s reign over foreign kings (Ps 102:15). In the case of Ezra 9:7, the phrase is used in reversed scenario. Instead of the community defeating the kings of the lands, they have now been given over to the “kings of the lands.”

If the consequence of disobedience is being handed over to foreign rule, the opposite reality would be to live under one’s own national jurisdiction. Kugler notes that Ezra 9:9 has no explicit indication that the author is seeking to be freed from Persian rule.102 This is indeed

100 Van Grol, “‘Indeed, We Are Servants We Are’: Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared,” 213.

[with “kings of [the ( יֵכְלַמ תוֹצָרֲאָה ) ”It is possible that the author used “kings of the lands 101 .(in mind (Jer 25:20; Ezek 27:33; Ps 2:2; 76:12; 89:27; 138:4; 148:11; Lam 4:12 ( יֵכְלַמ ץֶרֶא ) ”land ,to be a more likely reference. Nonetheless ” יֵכְלַמ ץֶראָָה “ However, the lack of the definite article makes seems to be used more often in ( יֵכְלַמ ץֶרֶא ) ”the two phrases are not so different. “Kings of [the] land the context of YHWH’s reign over foreign kings (cf., Ezek 27:33; Ps 138:4).

102 Gili Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move, BZAW 515 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019), 131.

123 true; there are no explicit desires for freedom in the text. This is perhaps because the central problem Ezra seeks to solve in his prayer is the community’s iniquities (Ezra 9:6). Yet despite the prayer’s main line of inquiry, it is clear that Ezra sees Persian rule as a consequence of disobedience.

5.4.1.2. Continued Oppression and Exile

The results of disobedience are also worth exploring. In the narrative so far, there has yet to be any complaint about Persia being an oppressive entity. However, Ezra 9:7 describes the rule of

Persia as oppressors:

From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case.

Williamson observes a salient point in this part of the prayer,

This awareness is continued by Ezra: the fundamental distress of the people of God is that they remain in that same exilic condition; ‘sword, captivity, pillage and open shame’ are just the forms which judgment takes in the Deuteronomic History…103

Kgs 8:46–53) and 1) ( הבש ) ”Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 134. The words “captive 103 ( ברח ) ”Judg 2:14; 2 Kgs 17:20) are clearly Deuteronomic. On the other hand, “sword) ( זב ז ) ”plunder“ Jer 2:26; Dan 9:7–8) are found in prophetic warning) ( תשב ) ”Jer 5:17; 9:15; 24:10) and “shame) statements. While we acknowledge the lack of explicit Deuteronomic language, we cannot deny that Ezra 9:7 has Deuteronomic foundations. The Deuteronomic history blames the failures of the community and the king for YHWH’s judgement (2 Kgs 17:7–20; 21:10–15) (Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama, 94).

124 What makes Williamson’s statement relevant for this present study are the words which end

For Ezra, the realities of exile are still present under the .( םוֹיַּהְכּ הֶזַּה ) ”as is now the case“ ,9:7 rule of Persia.104 Ezra does not think that oppression has stopped with the inception of the

Persian Empire. Quite the contrary, he believes that oppression still exists.

5.4.1.3. Understanding YHWH’s Favour and Steadfast Love

can be identified through the existence of a “remnant” and having ( הָנִּחְת ) ”YHWH’s “favour

“a stake in his holy place” (Ezra 9:8). The existence of a remnant is clearly an extension of

YHWH’s favour. Instead of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, YHWH allows them to exist

”a stake in his holy place) is not so clear. “Stake) ” דֵתָי םוֹקְמִבּ וֹשְׁדָק “ cf., Ezra 9:14). The phrase) has been widely understood by commentators to be a metaphor, signifying a secure setting.105

However, the most persuasive argument is one made by Moffat who refers to Isaiah in order to understand Ezra 9:8.106 Isaiah 22:23 uses “stake” as a metaphor of human power and status

in a secure place.” Isaiah ( דֵתָי ) which is wholly dependent on God, “I will fasten him like a peg

33:20 speaks of Jerusalem as a tent, “Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a quiet habitation, an

will never be pulled up…” Here, YHWH claims that he ( ויָתֹדֵתְי ) immovable tent, whose stakes will keep Jerusalem. These uses of “stake” in Isaiah are the most appropriate comparisons for

Ezra 9:8. Divine provision is the dominant message of Ezra 9:8–9. Therefore, as Moffat puts

104 Bänziger also makes the case that Ezra 9:7 speaks of the continued reality of exile even through the community of Israel had returned to Jerusalem (Bänziger, “Jauchzen und Weinen”: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud, 72.

105 E.g., Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 123; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 135; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 183–84.

106 Donald P. Moffat, “The Metaphor at Stake in Ezra 9:8,” VT 63 (2013): 290–98.

125 it, “The stake in Ezra 9:8 is a divinely provided support that remains dependent on continued divine provision.”107

before the kings ( דסח ) Ezra 9:9 reveals that YHWH “…extended to us his steadfast love of Persia…” Ezra then uncovers what this “steadfast love” is: “to give us new life to set up the house of our God, to repair its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judea and Jerusalem” (9:9).

Becking correctly notes that this verse, “expresses the view that the liberating acts of the

Persian kings were ultimately controlled by the God of Israel.”108 Also, this “steadfast love

to build the house of God ( הָיְחִמ ) ”before the kings of Persia” from YHWH results in “new life

in 9:9 should be understood to be a regional barrier,109 ( ָגּ רֵד ) ”and to give a wall. The “wall rather than a literal material wall.110 This is consistent with the metaphorical uses of “wall” in

107 Moffat, “The Metaphor at Stake in Ezra 9:8,” 298.

108 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 149.

109 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 149; Fried, Ezra, 382. Moffat defends this position in two ways (Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama, 101–102). First, the line “Jerusalem and Judah” refers to a region and a city and a literal wall is probably not what is intended when speaking of both a region and a city. Second, for a large wall in the HB (Mic 7:11). The rest of the uses on the ָגּ רֵד there is only one arguable use of HB (Num 22:24; Isa 5:5; Ps 80:13; Prov 24:31) refer to a small fence or stone wall beside a road or a vineyard.

110 Blenkinsopp asks whether 9:9 refers to the return of the first wave of exiles or Ezra’s commissioning in chapter 7 (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, in 9:9 is not usually understood literally since the more prominent ( ָגּ רֵד ) ”However, “wall .(133 ,[2009 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 136). So questions regarding the date of the) מוֹח הָ word for city “wall” is completion of the wall may not be necessary (e.g., Luc Dequeker, “Nehemiah and the Restoration of the Temple after the Exile,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust, BETL 133 [Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997], 548). Although it can be posited that the “house of God” can be understood literarily, this may not be a necessary interpretation. Eskenazi has argued that the house of God is not merely contained in the temple but “refers to the process of building the community itself (Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 73). which would be an unusual word for םור In addition, the verb used in reference to the house of God is a literal building.

126 the prophetic texts (e.g., Isa 3:14; 5:1–7; Ezek 19:10).111 In other words, Ezra thanks God for the existence of a political state which is recognised by the kings of Persia (9:9).

Some have argued that the “wall” in Ezra 9:9 refers to the protection given by the

wall) refers to a regional boundary, it would be difficult to suggest that the) ָגּ רֵד Persians.112 If word refers to protection. We can infer that Persia did have some part in the authorisation and legitimisation of the land of Judah. However, as it was argued above, the narrative consistently reduces the possibility of attributing success as due to the king of Persia. Ezra, in 8:22, makes no use of his opportunity to ask for royal protection in his journey towards Jerusalem. Moreover, in Ezra’s prayer, the reason behind the remnant’s existence is YHWH’s “brief moment” of favour (9:8),113 not the protection of Persia. Attributing all success and protection to YHWH has been a constant theme so far in Ezra (1:1; 7:6, 27–28; 8:31) and the sentiment does not change here.

We must note that Ezra here has all the kings of Persia in mind,114 not just Artaxerxes

,Hence .( יֵכְלַמ סַרָפ ) ”Ezra 9:7). The narrative in 9:9 turns its attention to the “kings of Persia)

around a vineyard in the prophets is “a traditional metaphor for Israel in their ָגּ רֵד A 111 enjoyment of a healthy relationship with Yahweh” (Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 396–97).

112 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 136; Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 42; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 149.

113 The favour which God has extended to the remnant is considered to be limited in time (see, G. Thomas Osterfield, Ezra and Nehemiah in the First Person [PhD diss.: Vanderbilt University, 2001], הָתַּﬠְו עַגֶר־טַﬠְמִכּ הָתְיָה הָנִּחְת ) ”…Ezra purports that “now for a brief moment favor has been shown .(89 ־טַﬠְמִכּ ) ”Ezra 9:8]). Time is of the essence for Ezra. This is warranted by the phrases “brief moment] Ezra 9.8]). Commentators usually attempt to calculate the] הָיְחִמ טַﬠְמ ) ”Ezra 9.8]) and “little life] עַגֶר number of years of this “brief moment” (e.g., Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 135; Fried, Ezra, 380). But the focus is on the small period of favour extended towards the community rather than a specific time frame. From this, we can understand that YHWH’s favour is the existence of a remnant and the giving of divine support. At the same time, it is limited in time.

114 Ezra 9:7 most likely has the Babylonian kings in mind also.

127 God extended love to the remnant before the kings of Persia. Thus, the existence of a temple and a regional state is due to the steadfast love of YHWH (Ezra 9:9) and not the Persian kings.

5.4.2. Summary There are three major observations in this section. The first observation is that Ezra’s prayer understands Persian rule to be a consequence of disobedience. Secondly, Ezra believes that there is ongoing oppression from the Persian empire. Thirdly, all success and favour are attributed to YHWH and not to King Artaxerxes. When these reactions combine, it is reasonable to suggest that Artaxerxes is presented critically.

5.5. SUMMARY

In conclusion, King Artaxerxes is presented in an unfavourable light. Ezra 4 portrays

Artaxerxes as a paranoid king who ultimately reverses the decree of Cyrus. After some absence,

Artaxerxes reappears in Ezra 7 only to permit the legislation of the law of God in Jerusalem.

Artaxerxes, however, has his own agendas: the laws of YHWH were to be installed in conjunction with the laws of the king. Artaxerxes demands certain punishments which are alien to Pentateuchal laws. Therefore, the rule of Artaxerxes becomes an interference in the complete legislation of the law of God in Jerusalem. Ezra 7 also denies a possible positive reading of

Artaxerxes rule. The God of Israel is understood as the sole author behind the king’s generosity towards Ezra’s demands.

Denying a positive reading of Artaxerxes’ kingship is continued in Ezra 8, as Ezra refuses to ask for protection for his journey towards Jerusalem. In addition, through the use of loanwords, the author reduces the king’s influence by insinuating that the royal laws were not utilised in Jerusalem. It is made clear that the foreign laws of the foreign king were handed over only to the foreign satraps and governors.

128 Lastly, Ezra’s prayer displays a revealing thought in the author’s mind. The prayer proclaims that the cause behind the rule of Persia is the sin of Israel; Persian occupancy is a consequence of disobedience. Moreover, the prayer suggests that the distresses of exile are still present within community. The people still live in shame and oppression. These are the last words concerning Artaxerxes in the book of Ezra

129

Chapter 6

ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH

The narrative of Nehemiah is limited to Artaxerxes’ rule and so it provides representations of the king. There are extensive portrayals of the king, the effects of his reign, and reflections on why Persia’s reign came into being. Nehemiah, the protagonist, is said to have been a

“cupbearer” (Neh 1:11) to the king and speaks with the king personally without the medium of letters. Although there is a close acquaintance between the king and his courtier, there is cynicism of the rule of Artaxerxes. As it will be shown in this chapter, the book of Nehemiah does not find the rule of Artaxerxes to be comforting nor helpful. In fact, the ruler is understood to be at times oppressive.

6.1. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 1

The book of Nehemiah begins quite unusually, “In the month of Chislev, in the twentieth year”

(Neh 1:1). The lack of clarity as to what “the twentieth year” refers to has caused some disagreements amongst scholars.1 Additionally, the absence of the mention of the reigning king here is new in Ezra-Nehemiah. Almost every introduction to a new scene is anchored by a king who is seated on the throne. Nehemiah 1 does not have that, however. Later in the text, it is

1 The date is apparently incomplete as it is unclear as to what the “twentieth year” refers to (see, Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 150; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 204). Japhet may be correct by concluding, “in the matter of chronology it is clear that the book is not built on any chronological structure that can be verified in historical-political terms” (Sara Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 260). But see, Greg Goswell, “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra- Nehemiah,” TJ 31 (2010): 187–203.

130 revealed that Artaxerxes is the reigning king and this gives the reader the context to place the narrative (cf., Neh 2:1). Yet, Neh 1 instead focuses on the past sins of Israel and its consequences. The reign of the Persian king, at this point, is a matter less important.

6.1.1. Nameless King As it was briefly mentioned, there is no reference to a king’s reign until Neh 1:11. This is in stark contrast to Ezra 1:1, which establishes the identity of the reigning king (Cyrus) and the date of his reign (the first year). Yet, Neh 1 fails to specify which king was ruling until the second chapter. In fact, before Artaxerxes is revealed to be king in Neh 2:1, the reader is supplied with a reference to the king without the king’s name, “At the time, I was cupbearer to

Neh. 1:11]).2 Wright correctly comments, “The absence of] יִנֲאַו יִתיִיָה הֶקְשַׁמ ךֶלֶמַּל ) ”the king this important detail at the beginning of the account becomes all the more conspicuous when precisely this information appears at the end of the chapter…”3

The fact that the king’s name does not appear does not suggest that Nehemiah portrays critically. A monarch can be mentioned without their names. But the fact that Neh 1 is so antithetical to the generic introduction (date in conjunction with the reigning king) makes this section in Ezra-Nehemiah that much more conspicuous. Even though we cannot say that

Artaxerxes’ portrayal here is strongly critical, it does suggest that Artaxerxes’ rule and his name remain insignificant at least in the first chapter of the book.

2 For background information as to what Nehemiah might have been and his status before the king see, Joseph Fleishman, “Nehemiah’s Request on Behalf of Jerusalem,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, ed. Isaac Kalimi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 243–46.

3 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 46.

131 6.1.2. Who is this Mere “Man”? If leaving out the name of the king was not bad enough, the text (quoting Nehemiah) has the

Nehemiah 1:11 reads, “Give success .( שׁיִאָה הֶזַּה ) ”audacity to call the Persian king, “this man to your servant today, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man!” After all, as Clines writes,

“[Artaxerxes] is a mere man who is of small account before God.” 4 On the contrary,

Williamson finds this conclusion unnecessary since “this man” are “neutral words.”5 Darius refers to himself as “a Persian man,”6 which may warrant Williamson’s point. However, as

Schulte has shown,7 no Persian-Period text contains the specific epithet “this man” for a

Persian king. Moreover, Goswell has demonstrated that the demonstrative adjective “this [man]”

,is often used in the HB to “express contempt.”8 For example, 1 Sam 10:27, 1 Kgs 22:27 ( הז )

in a pejorative sense.9 הז and Isa 6:10 all use

6.1.3. Nehemiah’s Central Concern If the Persian rule and the monarch that sits over it is not the main point of concern, then what is? Nehemiah 1:5–11 establishes the main line of concern through Nehemiah’s prayer: the well- being of Jerusalem and the promises of YHWH. And both concerns are interconnected with obedience to YHWH’s commandments.

4 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 140. Blenkinsopp comments, “[the prayer] was certainly not meant to be read by the political authorities” (Ezra-Nehemiah, 209).

5 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 173.

6 See, Naqš-e Rustam inscription.

7 Schulte, My Shepherd, Though You Do Not Know Me, 154.

8 Goswell, “The Attitude to the Persian in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 199.

9 See, GKC, 136b.

132 For Nehemiah, the collapse of the walls and gates were symptomatic of a spiritual collapse of the people of God. The shameful outcome of broken infrastructure was due to a lack of obedience. Nehemiah indicates this setback, “O LORD God of heaven, the great

with those who love ( דֶסֶח ) and steadfast love ( ֹשׁ רֵ מ בַּ ה רְ תיִ ) awesome God who keeps covenant

I now pray before you day and night for…( לוּ ֹשְׁ רְ מ יֵ צִ מ ְ תוֹ ָ י ו ) him and keep his commandments your servants…confessing the sins of the people of Israel…” (Neh 1:5–6).10 Those who obey

YHWH reap benefits and those who act contrarily will incur punishment (cf., Neh 1:9).

Nehemiah prays after hearing about the broken walls of Jerusalem (1:4). The notion of the broken walls then works as a topos: “where the speaker looks for something to say about the subject of real interest.”11 The topic of interest is the spiritual problem of the community and the need to repent and obey (e.g., 1:7–8).

The sins of the people are also identified. Nehemiah confesses,

…we have sinned against you. Both I and my family have sinned. We have offended you deeply, failing to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances that you commanded your servant Moses (Neh 1:6–7).

Here the words of 1:5 are reversed. YHWH loves those who “keep his commandments”

”but the community have done the opposite: “failing to keep the commandments ,( לוּ ֹשְׁ רְ מ יֵ צִ מ ְ תוֹ ָ י ו )

as a possible means to ( הלא י משה י ם ) ”Fensham sees the use of the title “God of heaven 10 “impress the Persian authorities” (Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 154). But this is only speculative as “God of heaven” seems also—albeit rare—to be a title used at some portions of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 24:3, 7; Jon 1:9; Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr 36:24).

11 Davies, Ezra and Nehemiah, 80. Laird notes a disconnect between the introduced problem (the broken walls) and the problem which Nehemiah pray for (Israel’s sins) (Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 261). However, Davies’ understanding of topos makes better sense here.

133 The inference is that at this present moment the repatriates lack the 12.( וּנְרַמָשׁ־אֹלְו תוְֹצִמַּה־תֶא )

The specifics of the .( דֶסֶח ) and steadfast love ( תיִרְבַּה ) privilege of both the covenant community’s failures are not expanded upon, but the section clearly highlights the main concern: the necessity to follow the commandments of God.13

Nehemiah, however, does not dwell too long on failure. Neh 1:8–9 clearly indicates that he finds hope in repentance,

Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are under the farthest skies, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place at which I have chosen to establish my name.

Williamson observes that vv.8–9 “…are a promise indicating that God will change his attitude toward his people when they repent.”14 Also, Becking comments, “The verb zkr does not refer to a nostalgic retrospective of the past, but an inner concentration with a view to behaviour in the present.”15 Nehemiah’s words highlight his hope for a better future, if the community repent.

12 Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, Siphrut 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 480.

13 Bob Becking, “Covenant, Agreement, and Law: The Social Code Underlying the Book of Nehemiah,” in Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015, ed. Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, OtSt 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 74.

14 Williamson writes, “Nehemiah applies the underlying theology, rather than the letter of the promise, in his petition in v 10” (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 173).

15 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 175.

134 The hope to find favour in YHWH’s sight through repentance is the main focus of the prayer. Among the various references offered for Neh 1:8–9, Deut 30:4 is often referred to,16 which has similar themes,17 “Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the

LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.” It is, however, difficult to suggest any one particular verse through the text since parallels are scarce. Instead, the echo should be understood as a representation of the ideas in Deuteronomy.18 According to which, disobedience will lead to a loss of land, and but repentance will lead to restoration.

Nehemiah essentially appropriates this idea to the present people, “They are your servants and

( ךֶדְּבַﬠ ) ”Neh. 1:10). Moses is titled “your servant) ”…( ָתיִדָפּ ) your people, whom you redeemed

The .( ךיֶדָבֲﬠ ) ”in Neh 1:7 and now the people are categorised as “your [YHWH’s] servants deliberate appropriation of Deuteronomic ideas is a guarantee for Nehemiah that obedience will lead to a restoration of both covenant and steadfast love.

6.1.4. Summary The narrative of Neh 1 is focused on the past failures of the people of God and the hope of restoration in the future. The collapse of the wall was indicative of a spiritual collapse of the people of God. However, if the people were to repent of their sins and change their behaviour by being obedient, Nehemiah envisions the restoration of both covenant and God’s steadfast love. The first chapter of Nehemiah introduces the issues at stake. The Persian king is certainly

16 E.g., Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 50–51; Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 158–59; Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 155–56.

17 Klaus R. Baltzer, “Moses Servant of God and the Servants: Text and Tradition in the Prayer of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5–11),” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson, A. Thomas Kraabel, and George W. E. Nickelsburg (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 123–25.

18 Pakkala, “The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 198.

135 not the primarily focus of the narrative. The Persian king is reduced to a “man” and he is of so little importance that his name does not appear in Neh 1.

6.2. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 2 (PART I)

Nehemiah’s conversation with the king as a cupbearer is presented in an eye-opening way (Neh

2:1–8). The interaction between the cupbearer and the king contains a number of contextual nuances which are developments upon Nehemiah’s character. Nehemiah is presented to be someone who is strategic in his dealings with King Artaxerxes, portraying him as a shrewd individual that manipulates the Persian king so as to get what he wants. However, Nehemiah’s need to be strategic before the king ultimately depicts the king as an undetermined contingency and even a possible threat.

6.2.1. The Month of Nisan We must first note the date that is provided in Neh 2:1, “In the month of Nisan…” The narrative also provides the date when Nehemiah heard the news of Jerusalem’s state, “In the month of

Chislev” (Neh 1:1). If Nehemiah’s occupation as cupbearer consisted of regular contact with the king, which is likely,19 then he is presented as having kept his composure before the king until this specific event.20 Williamson perceives the possibility of a dramatic Nehemiah who could not hold his equanimity until this point.21 Although possible, this is very difficult to ascertain from the text.22

19 Xenophon writes of a young Cyrus who was jealous of his grandfather’s cupbearer because the king was available to him (Cyr. 3.8–11).

20 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 178.

21 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 178.

22 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 179.

136 A number of commentators have pointed to the king’s custom where he would grant a wish to those who would approach him at a particular time of the year.23 Herodotus records a

Persian custom where on the king’s birthday he would be especially gracious. In the words of

Herodotus, “on that day no one should be refused a request” (Hist. 9:110). Special festive occasions also included this custom.24 Since the month of Nisan, in the Persian calendar, was the first month of the year, this may have been a significant month and required some celebration.25 Whatever the event was, it is described to be a merry and intimate occasion as the king’s queen sat beside him (2:6) and he was drinking wine.

Therefore, we can say with some certainty that Nehemiah approached the king on no ordinary day. It was strategic on Nehemiah’s part as he holds his expression until the month of

Nisan; approximately three months after hearing about the Jerusalem walls from Hanani.

6.2.2. The Lady of Persia In Neh 2:6, we are given information that is seemingly unneeded, “the queen was also sitting

a , ֵשׁ לַג Neh 2:6]). The noun that is employed for “queen” is] לַגֵשַּׁהְו תֶבֶשׁוֹי וֹלְצֶא ) ”beside him

23 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 159; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 214; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 178; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 179.

24 See, Esth 2:18; 5:6; 1 Esd 5:6. See also, Carolina López-Ruiz, “The King and the Cupbearer: Feasting and Power in Eastern Mediterranean Myth,” in Patrimonio Cultural de La Vid y El Vino (Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Almendralejo, Badajoz, Feb. 2011), ed. Juan Blánquez and Sebastián Celestino Pérez (Madrid: Badajoz, 2013), 133–51.

25 Williamson notes the possibility that the king’s birthday may have been celebrated at the new year or a similar practice to have been in place for other occasions (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 178). There is no Achaemenid documentation that mention a New Year festival, however, the Achaemenid evidence is sparse and there are no good reasons to be sceptical of the Classical authors. For a longer examination of the topic of the New Year festival see, Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 185–86.

137 loanword which appears rarely in the Hebrew segments of the HB.26 Although I have translated it as “queen” the meaning is dubious. It can mean “concubine,” yet the definite article in conjunction with a singular noun in Neh 2:6 increases the likelihood that the lady sitting beside the king was not a mere concubine, but a royal lady; perhaps the queen.27

The Greek accounts of Persian royal women portray them as powerful figures with unhinged tempers.28 Although, these accounts may be tainted with Greek idiosyncrasies,29 it does not negate the strong possibility that Persian queens were influential on the king’s decisions. Early Greek writers (e.g., Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates) also depict

Persian royal women to be rather autonomous and sensible.30 The concept of an influential queen is certainly not out of bounds for a Jewish writer. In this case, the intention may possibly be to set a scene where the king of Persia’s decision regarding Nehemiah may be influenced by the queen’s presence. This speaks to Nehemiah’s shrewd dealings with the king of Persia.

Moreover, the fact that royal women were rarely seen in public to keep their honour also shows that Nehemiah is present in a private setting,31 and he approaches the king within this private setting. Royal women, in the Achaemenid empire, built honour through their

26 Cf., Ps 45:10. The word most likely comes from an Akkadian protoype, ša ekalli, “[she] of the palace” or issi ekalli, “woman of the palace” (see, Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 244–45).

27 Briant writes, “The category ‘wife’ was distinguished from the category of “concubine” by means of an official ceremony and was manifested in the status of the children” (Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 278). The Greek sources indicate that Artaxerxes I had one legitimate wife: Damaspia and several Babylonian concubines (Ctesias 44–48).

28 E.g., Hist. 9:109–11; Art. 3:1–4; Ctesias Frag. 14 §44.

29 Some historians view the Greek representation of Persian queens as “literary cliché” (see, Josef Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia [New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996], 83).

30 Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, 100.

31 Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, 104.

138 invisibility.32 This is consistent with the depiction of queen Vashti in Esther (Esth 1:10–22).

When King Xerxes wants to display Vashti’s beauty to his eunuchs, Vashi refuses to go out in public. Therefore, Nehemiah is in a private setting before an influential lady. He is depicted as not only a trusted member of the court, but he is also shrewd in his dealings.

6.2.3. Nehemiah’s “Smooth-talk” In addition to Nehemiah’s timing, his words can be conveyed as “smooth-talk.”33 Nehemiah begins his speech with a customary oriental wish,34 “May the king live forever!” (Neh 2:3). He then proceeds to string together cleverly thought out words. Becking observes two remarkable points about his speech. 35 Firstly, Nehemiah does not mention Jerusalem at all. In fact,

Jerusalem is never spoken of in the discussion. Secondly, the speech of Nehemiah indirectly appeals to the monumental tomb culture of the Persians,36 “the city, the place of my ancestors’ graves, lies waste…” (2:3). Reinmuth notes that Nehemiah’s words resemble that of a stereotypical reference to being buried in King David’s city (1 Kgs 2:10; 11:43; 13:31; 15:8,

24; 2 Kgs 9:28; 14:20; 2 Chr 28:27; 32:33), but his speech refrains from speaking explicitly of

Jerusalem or the city of David.37 By carefully choosing his words, Nehemiah avoids a direct

32 See, Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, 104.

33 See, Fleishman, “Nehemiah’s Request on Behalf of Jerusalem,” 241–66; Burt, The Courtier and the Governor, 127.

34 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 142.

35 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 180.

36 Becking notes that in Pasargadae the tomb of Cyrus is still admired, and in Naqš-e Rustam the graves of Darius I, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I are still present (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 180–81).

37 Titus Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: zur literarischen Eigenart traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias, (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 2002) 66.

139 reference to Jerusalem and its wall (cf., Ezra 4) and elicits an empathetic response by the

Persian king.38

The king invites Nehemiah to speak his mind, “What do you request?” (Neh 2:4). Here,

and I will build) הָנֶּנְבֶאְו Nehemiah replies shrewdly. Becking notices that the last word of v.5 her) to be intriguing. The referent of the feminine is unclear. Becking summarises the issue aptly, “Does Nehemiah refer to the city, the tombs of his ancestors, or the walls? Or does the narrator leave that diplomatically in the middle?”39 It may, in fact, be deliberately ambiguous.

Being too forthright about building city walls could come across as a potential threat, so

Nehemiah is presented as being intentionally vague.

6.2.4. Good and Evil, and Zoroastrianism There is a wordplay on “good” and “evil” within Nehemiah’s conversation with the king.40 It

as the ([ הָﬠָר הָלֹדְג ] ”is not limited to Nehemiah’s speech (e.g., Neh 1:3, “great trouble

Eskenazi observes .( עַר ) ”and “evil ( בוֹט ) ”conversation contains a high number of uses of “good that the passage moves from “evil” (Neh 2:1, 2, 3) to “good” (Neh 2:5, 6, 7, 8), ending on a

since ,( עַר ) Why is your face sad‘“ ”;…( עַר ) note of “good” (Neh 2:10):41 “I had never been sad

of the heart;’” “Why should my face not be sad ( עַר ) you are not sick? This can only be sadness

( בוֹט ) the king;” “‘If it pleases ( בַטיִיַּו ) the king;” “So it pleased ( בוֹט ) If it pleases‘“ ”;( ֹל י־א רֵ וּעְ )

hand of God was upon me.” Eskenazi argues that ( הָבוֹטַּה ) the king;” “For the gracious

38 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 179.

39 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 182.

40 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 146; Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 205.

41 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 146 n.71.

140 Nehemiah is presented as having a polarized view of reality: everything is either good or evil.42

The constant shift between “good” and “evil” seems to warrant Eskenazi’s proposal. However, a question still remains: why does Nehemiah present a polarized view of reality? The answer to this question may be found in the religion of Zoroastrianism.

There are reasons to accept that Artaxerxes was a Zoroastrian.43 The same can be said of the previous Persian kings. With Artaxerxes’ Zoroastrianism in mind, Fleishman offers an insightful interpretation of Neh 2. He argues that Nehemiah uses “good” and “bad” with an awareness of Zoroastrianism’s value of purity. Purity and impurity were fundamental states of being in Zoroastrianism and are unequivocally associated with the “good” and the “bad.”44 So,

Neh 2:2) the question is) ”?( עַר ) when Artaxerxes asks Nehemiah, “Why is your face sad concerned with Nehemiah’s purity, or lack thereof. If Nehemiah was impure as a cupbearer of the wine of the king, he would be defiling the king’s wine.45 This would explain why the narrator expresses fear, “then I was very much afraid” (Neh 2:2). The difficulty with

Fleishman’s conclusion, however, is that Nehemiah does not deny his “impurity.” He readily

because the city of Jerusalem lies waste. If Zoroastrian belief really ( עַר ) ”accepts that he is “sad thought that one’s purity determined the fate of the soul after death, Nehemiah’s impurity would leave him in a precarious position before the king.

42 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 146.

43 While the nature of Achaemenid religious practice and belief remains largely obscure, it is still recognised as Zoroastrianism (see, Yaakov Elman and Shai Secunda, “Judaism,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, ed. Michael Stausberg and Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevina, [Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015], 423–35; Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Zoroastrianism,” in The Cambridge History of Religions in the Ancient World, ed. Michele Renee Salzman, [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013], 102–28).

44 Jamsheed K. Choksy, Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph Over Evil (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989), xix.

45 Fleishman, “Nehemiah’s Request on Behalf of Jerusalem,” 251–52.

141 From a methodological standpoint, one must tread carefully when observing

Zoroastrian belief within the HB. Hazardous methods may lead to tenuous interpretations.46

Much of the data we have about Achaemenid Zoroastrianism does not come from the Persian

Period; most are from Greek sources or from much later Pahlavi texts. Yet, the general consensus is that the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian in the broadest sense of the term.47 If we turn our attention to the text of Nehemiah, we do not know if the text itself shows extensive knowledge of Zoroastrian purity laws either. Therefore, if we are to make accurate interpretations of the text, we can only assume that the author had broad understandings of

Zoroastrianism. This knowledge would have been known to most people living in and even after Persian rule.

One inscription that presents the Achaemenid empire’s Zoroastrianism is the Behistun inscription, and with it the Behistun relief. This inscription displays the religious thoughts of

King Darius. According to the inscription, within the vertical plane of reality, the king of Persia occupied the intermediate state between good and evil. The forces of evil (sometimes known as the “forces of the Lie”) mount serious assaults against the “good” which is occupied by the

Wise Lord, Ahura Mazdā. Darius, by aligning himself with the good, is saluted by the Wise

Lord.48 As much as we know, Artaxerxes seems to have adopted a similar worldview. He repeats the creation formulas of Ahura Mazdā known from Naqš-e Rustam and presents

46 For the methodological issues surrounding the comparative study of Nehemiah and Zoroastrianism see, Kiyan Foroutan, “References to Zoroastrian Beliefs and Principles or an Image of the Achaemenid Court in Nehemiah 2:1–10?,” in Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire, ed. Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, ANEM 13 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 403–18.

47 See, Albert de Jong, “Traditions of the Magi,” in The Idea of Iran: Birth of the Persian Empire, ed. Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart (London: Tauris, 2005), 39 n.1.

48 See, Bruce Lincoln, Religion, Empire, Torture: The Case of Achaemenian Persia, with a Postscript on Abu Ghraib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 17. The Behistun inscription presents Darius as a faith worshiper of Ahura Mazdā (see, Behistun 5:15–20).

142 himself as a builder upon his father’s work,49 “I am Artaxerxes the Great King, king of kings, son of Xerxes the king, grandson of Darius, an Achaemenid” (A1Pa). Although, there are no extensive sources on Artaxerxes’ religious convictions in comparison to Darius and Xerxes, there are good reasons to suggest that Artaxerxes followed the general tenets of Zoroastrianism of his father and grandfather.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that the text of Nehemiah contains general concepts of the king’s role in Zoroastrianism as intermediary between good and evil. After all, the aforementioned Behistun inscription and relief were publicly available royal inscriptions. This then would explain why the narrative uses “good” and “evil” so frequently within a span of ten verses. Nehemiah is depicted to speak in Zoroastrian terms before the king. This suggestion is much closer to the sources we have for Achaemenid Zoroastrianism and the Zoroastrian belief is broad enough for even a Jew to know.

If we return to Eskenazi’s observation that the narrative presents a polarized view of reality (i.e., good versus evil), a contrast is implied between working for a foreign king and working for the purposes of the Jerusalem community. The cause of Nehemiah’s sadness was the destruction of the Jerusalem walls. Despite holding a valued position in the Persian empire,

Nehemiah cannot see reality to be “good,” if Jerusalem remained in a sorry state. For Nehemiah,

Jerusalem needed a wall. Nehemiah, therefore, speaks with savoir-faire; he is shown to use deliberate words in order to gain the king’s favour. Nehemiah 2 ultimately speaks to a Jewish audience, so the real “good” and “bad” should be understood through a Jewish lens.

Nonetheless, the audience can still appreciate Nehemiah’s ability to win over the king’s favour by using Zoroastrian categories which somewhat overlap Jewish categories.

49 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 570.

143 6.2.5. The God of Success Nehemiah’s plans are clandestine, but it was nonetheless risky business. Nehemiah himself admits that, “I was very much afraid” (Neh 2:2). If indeed the king deemed the request to be unreasonable, Nehemiah would be risking his status in the courts or, worse, endangering the work on the wall in Jerusalem.50 Upon perceiving Nehemiah’s sadness, the king probes the reasons (Neh 2:2). Before anything is said to the king, Nehemiah prays, “So I prayed to the

with the phrase “God ללפ The use of the verb .([2:4] לֵלַּפְּתֶאָו יֵהלֱא־לֶא םִיָמָשַּׁה ) ”God of Heaven

is a repetition of 1:4. Thus showing that Nehemiah’s dependence on ( יֵהלֱא םִיָמָשַּׁה ) ”of Heaven

God is maintained even in his dealings with the king.

The conversation between the king and the courtier is structured to show God as the guiding hand. Goswell notices that the exchange follows a pattern:51

1. The king said to me (Neh 2:2, 4, 6a) 2. personal aside (Neh 2:2d, 4d, 6b) 3. I said to the king (Neh 2:3, 5, 7–8a).

The prayer in Neh 2:4d is at the heart of the personal aside, thus the focus is on God’s guidance in the process. 52 Moreover, each time Nehemiah speaks to the king, he utilises reverent language (e.g., “May the king live forever” [2:3]). But by couching the personal aside before his speech shows that Nehemiah is not expressing all his thoughts before the king,53 and instead his worries are cast towards his God. I will, however, add one more point to Goswell’s

50 Fleishman, “Nehemiah’s Request on Behalf of Jerusalem,” 244.

51 Goswell, Ezra-Nehemiah, 210.

52 Goswell, Ezra-Nehemiah, 211.

53 Goswell, Ezra-Nehemiah, 211.

144 observation: the pattern is interrupted by a final evaluation by Nehemiah, “And the king granted me what I asked, for the gracious hand of my God was upon me” (2:8). The reason for the outcome was not the king’s benevolence, nor the king’s desire to allow religious freedom, but because of the hand of God.

We cannot ignore the response to Artaxerxes’ initial query (c.f., Neh 2:2), “Then I was very much afraid” (Neh 2:2). Schulte argues, “Nehemiah’s reaction suggests that the Judean servant’s relationship with the foreign king now appears to be endangered.” 54 By the narrative’s standard, Artaxerxes is not a king who is necessarily in favour of the repatriated community or YHWH. There was the legitimate possibility, as described in Nehemiah’s introspection, that the king would deny the reconstruction of the walls and Nehemiah’s reputation before the king would be damaged. But as the narrative progresses, it reveals to the reader that even though Artaxerxes could have denied Nehemiah’s request, the Israelite God will extend grace to the cupbearer.

Nehemiah’s final request is also noteworthy. He merely asks for a safe passage to Judah

(Neh 2:7). There is no request for protection while building, nor is there a plea for a decree to be passed to enable building. All that is requested is a guaranteed journey and resources (2:8).

The safe passage is assured by a distribution of letters to the governors beyond the river, but safe building is not certain since materials are the only things Nehemiah requests (2:8).

Undoubtedly, safety is a concern for Nehemiah; otherwise he would not have asked for a letter of authority and the king would not have sent Nehemiah with officers and horsemen (2:9).

After all, the king wants his cupbearer back (2:6). But why does Nehemiah not ask for protection while building? A reasonable explanation would be that Nehemiah sees the work on the wall—its success in the midst of danger—as a task for God. This is exemplified in 2:18,

54 Schute, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know me, 158–59.

145 “And I told them [those with Nehemiah] of the hand of my God that had been upon me for good…”

6.2.6. Summary Eskenazi suggests that the Persian king is portrayed as a friend.55 This conclusion ought to be nuanced in light of the analysis above. While it is quite possible to suggest that Artaxerxes acts in a friendly manner despite the possibility of the contrary, the scene between the king and

Nehemiah portrays a servant who acts shrewdly in his dealings with the king. Nehemiah waits until the right moment and speaks strategically in order to win Artaxerxes over. The king is eventually convinced and helps Nehemiah’s case. However, the successful exchange with the king and the outcome is attributed to YHWH. Artaxerxes, moreover, is not considered to be a monarch already in favour of the community in Jerusalem; he needed convincing. He is different from Cyrus who was prompted by YHWH to do his work (c.f., Ezra 1:1–4). Thus,

Artaxerxes is not presented as a king in favour of the Judean community. In fact, from our knowledge of Ezra 4, he was antithetical to the idea of building the city. What the narrative of

Neh 1 provides is an episode in which the king’s heart is changed through Nehemiah’s perceptiveness but ultimately by the work of YHWH.

6.3. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 2 (PART II)

Another noteworthy event takes place in Nehemiah 2 which is outside the conversation between the cupbearer and the king. With the permission to rebuild the wall in Jerusalem,

Nehemiah is also given letters of authorisation from the king. These letters, however, are given

55 Tamara C. Eskenazi, “Imagining the Other in the Construction of Judahite Identity in Ezra- Nehemiah,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 250.

146 to the Persian ranks and never introduced in Jerusalem or used. In fact, Nehemiah does not even mention these letters when his enemies solicit, “Are you rebelling against the king?” (Neh

2:19).

6.3.1. Where is the King and Where are His Letters? Polaski observes a phenomenon in the book of Nehemiah; he calls his analysis “Nehemiah

Polaski identifies that after Nehemiah 56”. תוֹרְגִּא Comes to Yehud: The Case of the Missing finishes his conversation with Artaxerxes (Neh 2:9), Nehemiah gives the “king’s letters”

to the governors of the province Beyond the River and then the letters are never ( תוֹרְגִּא ךֶלֶמַּה ) reintroduced. In Polaski’s words “Nehemiah, in his account, never uses the letters in Yehud.”57

Polaski concludes,

The absence of letters seems to be part of Nehemiah’s larger concern to diminish the traces of imperial power in his story. Nehemiah mentions the letters only in the imperial context of court and governors. In Yehud, Nehemiah does not rely on such props.58

Polaski’s suggestion is warranted. Nehemiah could have used these letters when and his group are accused of rebellion in 2:19. Even when Nehemiah speaks with his workers in 2:18, nothing is said concerning the letters and instead God’s guiding hand is reiterated, “the hand of my God

If we add the fact that neither the .([2:18] דַי יַהלֱא איִה־רֶשֲׁא הָבוֹט יַלָﬠ ) ”had been gracious to me

56 Don Polaski, “Nehemiah: Subject of the Empire, Subject of Writing,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, ed. Isaac Kalimi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 43–45.

57 Polaski, “Nehemiah: Subject of the Empire, Subject of Writing,” 44.

58 Polaski, “Nehemiah: Subject of the Empire, Subject of Writing,” 45.

147 king nor his name is mentioned once in the segment,59 we can deduce that the king’s footprint is reduced in Nehemiah’s successes. Narrative non-mention may not suggest a historical non- happening. Just because Nehemiah is never said to have used the king’s letters, it does not mean it was never used.60 However, the narrative remains silent with regards to the king’s letters.

” תוֹרְגִּא “ One point that is not noted in Polaski’s work is the use of the Akkadian loanword

(letters) in Neh 2:9. As we have seen already, loanwords can be used for rhetorical purposes, and in 2:9 this again seems to be the case. The Akkadian loanword is used in association with foreigners in the book and after Neh 2:9 it is used in a pejorative sense.61 These “letters” are distinguishably foreign and have no part in the province of Judea. Hence, similar to Ezra 8:35–

36, the foreign letters of the foreign king are given to foreign governors and never introduced in Jerusalem.

6.3.2. Are you Going Against the King? In Neh 2:19–20, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem mock and ridicule Nehemiah, “What is it that you are doing? Are you rebelling against the king?” The remark “Are you rebelling against the

is the serious attribution of treason. Such an accusation should ( לַﬠַה ךֶלֶמַּה םֶתּאַ םיִדְרֹמ ) ”?king

59 Artaxerxes is not mentioned until Neh 5:14.

60 I thank Professor Bob Becking for this insight.

,is used in 2 Chr 30:1, 6; Ezra 4:8, 11 [Aram.]; 5:6; Neh 2:7, 8, 9; 6:5, 17 ( תוֹרְגִּא ) ”Letters“ 61 19. In Ezra-Nehemiah, this word is almost always used pejoratively. In Ezra (4:8, 11; 5:6) and is used for foreign letters to the Persian monarch by enemies. Neh 6:17 תוֹרְגִּא (Nehemiah (Neh 6:5, 19 is the exception, but its use is still in a pejorative sense, “Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah to Tobiah, and Tobiah’s letters came to them. For many in Judah were bound ( תוֹרְגִּא ) sent many letters by oath to him, because he was the son in law of Shecaniah son of Arah: and his son Jehohanan had married the daughter of Meshullam son of Berehiah. Also, they spoke of his good deeds in my presence, and reported my words to him. And Tobiah sent letters to intimidate me” (Neh 6:17–19). The nobles .is used תוֹרְגִּא were co-conspirators with Tobiah and it is in this context that

148 necessitate a response. Nehemiah, however, does not deny rebellion. Scholars have suggested that the reason behind Nehemiah’s lack of speech is because he saw through their bluff since he had the monarch’s consent.62 This is indeed possible, but Nehemiah’s actual response in

Neh 2:20 reveals something else.

Nehemiah responds in Neh 2:20 with, “‘the God of Heaven is the one who will give us success, and we his servants are going to start building; but you have no share or claim or historic right in Jerusalem’.” From a political perspective, the response would be a weak defence against a charge of treason; as Batten remarks, “The mention of the king’s authority would be far more impressive to Sanballat than the grace of God…”63 A response highlighting the backing of the Persian king would have ended the matter immediately. Sanballat’s accusation would fall flat on its face and Nehemiah would have continued his task.

However, instead of pointing to Artaxerxes’ authority Nehemiah’s response revolves around YHWH. This reveals who Nehemiah believes determines success for the building of the wall. Success is dependent on YHWH and not Artaxerxes. The narrative utilises the verb

which is only found here (2:20) and Neh 1:11. The success of the ( חלצ ) ”to give success“ building of the wall is Nehemiah’s central concern, and the completion of the wall relied solely on YHWH’s provision. Additionally, Nehemiah’s remark “we his [YHWH’s] servants are going to arise and rebuild” (Neh 2:20) reveals an explicit confirmation. In the conversation between the courtier and the king, Nehemiah calls himself “your [Artaxerxes] servant” (2:4).

But here Nehemiah not only keeps silent about Artaxerxes’ authority but also identifies himself and the rest of his group as the servants of the “God of Heaven.”

62 E.g., Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 56; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 148.

63 Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 204.

149 The animosity of Sanballat and his posse continues in Neh 4. While it began with jeering (Neh 4:1–2), later these adversaries scheme violence (4:7–8). Shepherd and Wright argue that military conflict would not have eventuated under the auspices of the Persian rule,64 but the possibility is there within the narrative since guards are posted (4:9). What is especially surprising in the narrative, however, is Nehemiah’s decision not to contact the Persian king.

Artaxerxes was the one who authorised the building of the wall, so if Sanballat decides to wage war, he would be defying the king’s sanction. But Nehemiah never speaks of the king or to the king. And instead of requesting help from Artaxerxes, the community pray to YHWH (4:9).

The authority of the king was invested in the building of the wall, but Nehemiah does not seek help from the king. Questions regarding the king’s capability for assistance are not answered here, but the possibility of assistance from the empire is unambiguously ignored.

Additionally, Nehemiah is portrayed in a way where he cannot be indicted for treason, yet, at the same time, he does not deny treason either.

6.3.3. Summary The latter verses of Neh 2 show a different side of Nehemiah. The cupbearer’s interaction with the king initially shows a servant who trembles before his king. However, once Nehemiah leaves for duty, he shows his reliance upon YHWH. The king’s letters which authorise the building project in Yehud are not used, and instead all confidence is placed upon YHWH. In effect, all credit is stripped from Artaxerxes as if the king merely came into the scene as a prop and then is quickly discarded after use. Furthermore, in the narrative, Nehemiah does not utilise the alliances he has with the Persian king when accused of treason. The king’s letters are not reintroduced, and Nehemiah is strangely silent regarding the accusation of treason. Nehemiah

64 Wright and Shepherd, Ezra and Nehemiah, 63.

150 2, therefore, does not give a favourable presentation of King Artaxerxes. While the narrative does not explicitly speak against the Persian king, some level of discontentment is undeniable.

6.4. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 5–6

In Nehemiah 5, the narrative turns to the repatriates’ economic status. It is evident is that the king’s tax is burdensome for the returnees. In addition, the previous governors had made life difficult for the community. Upon becoming the governor, Nehemiah reverses some of these problems for the good of the people. He neglects his own luxuries so as not to burden the returnees, yet he also uses his own finances for foreign diplomacy. Ultimately, Nehemiah is portrayed to be like a king, a king comparable to Artaxerxes.

6.4.1. The King’s Tax A depressing scene is described in Neh 5. The reader is notified that the common people were having to indenture their children into slavery in order to purchase food (5:3). Others had to mortgage their fields or vineyards in order to pay the king’s taxes (5:4). When witnessing the scene, Nehemiah becomes infuriated that certain individuals were taking interest from each other (5:6–7). There is undoubtedly an ethical issue at hand: acquisitiveness over care for the vulnerable. Although economic injustice may be the focus of this scene, a significant point can be lost if the theme of economic discrimination is overemphasised. The particular point that I am alluding to is the negative influence of the Persian rule in the life of the community.

We find three complaints expressed in Neh 5:1–4,

Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish kin. For there were those who said, “With our sons and our daughters, we are many; we must get grain, so that we may eat and stay alive.” There were also those who said, “We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our houses in order to get grain during the famine.” And there were those who said, “We are having to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay

151 the king’s tax.”65

The first complaint relates to the lack of grain; the second is concerned with landowners who were having to mortgage their fields, vineyards, and homes in order to purchase food during the famine; and the third complaint refers also to landowners who were forced to take loans on their property. However, the reasoning for the third complaint is different from the first two.

The third complaint it is not about the lack of food but rather the king’s tax. This is the first time the king is mentioned since Neh 2:19, and his mention here is far positive. In an already dire situation where food had become scarce, some in the community were further burdened by the king’s tax.

Taxes in the ancient world, especially taxes legislated by a foreign magistrate, were an assumed reality. So, the mere existence of a taxation system cannot be the issue. One of the problems in Neh 5 are not the taxes themselves but most likely the amount demanded. While we do not have enough sources on the Achaemenid tax system in order to make sound approximations of the tax rate,66 the narrative indicates that this tax was no small amount. Later

is revealed for the ( םיִלָקְשׁ־ףֶסֶכּ םיִﬠָבְּראַ ) ”in Neh 5:15, a figure of “forty shekels of silver

in Neh 5:3 was due to a preoccupation with the ( בָﬠָר ) ”It is not clear that the “hunger 65 construction of the wall, or a famine. Becking, however, has shown that there is good evidence that Persian Period Yehud encountered huge variations of yearly rainfall which could have caused periodical droughts (Bob Becking, “Coping with Drought and Famine in Some Post-Exilic Texts,” in Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, BZAW 461 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014], 229–56). Haggai 1:11 also refers to a drought.

66 The subject of tax in the Achaemenid system is very complex subject. The evidence is very partial, and a lot is deduced from incidental references. Moreover, further difficulties arise from the various terms used to label various forms of payments. For a thorough analysis of the sources see, Amélie Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources Form the Achaemenid Period [London: Routledge, 2010], 669–729. There is a possibility that the text perceives the governors tax as a part of was ( ףסכ ) the king’s tax. Ezra-Nehemiah, however, seems to portray these as different things. Money needed to pay off the king’s tax (Neh 5:4) but the governors allowance demanded both money and food (5:14).

152 governor’s tax. Modern currency equivalents are not usually helpful, but it is clear within the story that this amount was not insignificant.67 Whether the governor’s tax was the king’s tax or a part of it is not clear. However, the governor’s taxes are described to be “heavy burdens”

(5:15)

In addition to be heavy burdens, the king’s tax is portrayed to be a foreign tax. A

(The word appears in Ezra (4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24 68.( ַדִּמ ת) ”particular loanword is used for “tax

appears only in Neh 5:4 within the Hebrew corpus. Local תַדִּמ in the Aramaic segments, but kings in Israel taxed their citizens, so tax per se should not be considered to be problematic.

Moreover, taxes from a foreign government were a customary part of life. This, however, does not suggest that taxes enforced by a foreign entity were considered to be entirely or partly positive. This is made clear later in Ezra-Nehemiah where it indicates that living under foreign rule and having their resources taken to the king of Persia was a result of sin (cf., Neh 9:36–

37). This tax implemented by the Persian king is depicted to be a negative burden upon the

Jerusalem community.

Laird makes a salient point through a question, “Why do the complainants submit to the king’s tax but object to the behavior of their ‘brother’?”69 Her answer is,

The economic obligations of the state feel natural because they accord with individual and collective histories. This is most obvious in the failure to question the demand for tribute or taxes out of the produce of the people— whether they have the means or not. Neither Nehemiah nor the people who complain question the payment of taxes. Instead, Nehemiah chastises the local

67 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 244.

”is most likely a derivative of Akkadian, maddattu, “tribute הדנמ and its by-form הַדִּמ 68 (Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 314–16).

69 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 236.

153 nobles for charging interest on loans to families who needed funds to make those payments.70

The nobles’ desire to increase interest upon their own members, especially those who cannot fend for themselves is depicted as a revolting sight. However, the reality which undergirds this problem is the king’s tax. If there were no king’s tax, then certain members of the community would not have to take loans on their property in order to pay these taxes. The perpetrators can change their actions to benefit the community like Nehemiah (Neh 5:14–15) and they do change for the better later in the narrative (Neh 5:9–13). However, the reality of paying the king’s tax is something that cannot be changed.

6.4.2. Forfeiting State Luxuries Nehemiah is appointed to be the governor in the land of Judah (Neh 5:14). In the narrative, the time and actions of Nehemiah as governor are highlighted. The time was “from the twentieth year to the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes…” (5:14). Although the individual who appointed Nehemiah as the governor is not clear, the time frame in 5:14 indicates that it was

Artaxerxes who appointed him. This also suggests that the “food allowance of the governor”

was a mandate given by the king. But Nehemiah’s actions are to not take the ( םֶחֶל הָחֶפַּה ) governor’s food allowance. In Neh 5, Nehemiah forfeits various luxuries which exist through burdening the community.

Striking comparisons are set up between Nehemiah and the former governors. A number of words are shared between the descriptions of what the former governors did (Neh

allowance ( םֶחֶל ) ”and what Nehemiah does (5:16–18): Nehemiah did not eat the “food (5:15

(5:14) while the former governors took “food” and wine (5:15); The governors’ “servants” are

70 Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 236.

154 said to have “lorded it over the people” (5:15), while Nehemiah’s “servants” gather for the work of the walls (5:16). At Nehemiah’s table, he was able to supply an abundance of “wine”

without having to demand it from the people (5:18), unlike the former governors who took ( ןִיַי )

.(from the people (5:15 ( ןִיַי ) ”wine“

Though Nehemiah is associated with the Persian official ranks,71 there is no doubt that he is different. The authority and privilege that is afforded to Nehemiah is not abused but used in order to help the community. Therefore, Nehemiah, according to his self-perception uses an unaccommodating Persian system to benefit the returnees and obey God by building the wall.

6.4.3. King-like Table Setting One of the more fascinating components of Nehemiah’s presentation is his banquet-like feast in Neh 5:17–18. In ancient Persia, gigantic feasts were held by the king quite regularly. From what we can gather from the Greek sources, these feasts included a disproportionate amount of food.72 5:18 contains a long list of food that Nehemiah prepares at his table: “Ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and every ten days, skins of wine in abundance.” All the sources we have of the king’s dinner explicitly mention the addition of birds in feast.73 The

has ָחֶפּ ה .governor) used to describe Nehemiah role in the Persian ranks) ָחֶפּ ה The loanword 71 also been applied to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14) and in most instances it is applied to Persian officials under the authority of Artaxerxes (Ezra 5:3, 6; 6:6, 7, 13; 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7) (Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 133).

72 Athenaeus, Dinner of the Sophists, lists the King’s Dinner, “One thousand sacrificial animals are butchered for the king each day, including horses, camels, oxen, donkeys, and deer; the majority though are sheep and goats. Lots of birds are eaten too: ostriches (a very large creature), geese, and chickens. Each of the king’s guests is served with a modest food portion and takes home the leftovers for food the following day. But the majority of the cooked meat and breadstuffs are taken out into the courtyard for the bodyguards and the household troops which the king supports” (4.145). See also, Aelian, Historical Miscellany, 1.31–3; Polyaenus, Stratagems, 4.3.32.

73 “Lots of birds were eaten too…” (Athenaeus, Dinner of the Sophists, 4.145); “Fat geese four hundred. Three hundred turtle-doves. Small birds of different kinds six hundred” (Polyaenus, Stratagems, 4.3.32).

155 same can be said with the abundance of wine.74 This list of food resembles that of a royal banquet. Wright notes that if the population of Judah during this period was 17,000,75 then

“Nehemiah’s yearly rations would have sufficed for the meat consumption of the whole province!”76 Much like the royal banquets of the Persian kings, Nehemiah as a subject of Persia holds his own banquet.

A serious accusation can be levelled against Nehemiah’s lavish table setting. How could Nehemiah exhibit such extravagance in a time of famine? Thus, Nehemiah’s abundance of food could ultimately be understood as a critique. It is, however, indicated in the text that the food portions were supplied through Nehemiah’s own funds and not the governor’s food allowance “because of the heavy burden of labor on the people” (5:18). Nehemiah avoids being a hypocrite by not burdening the people unlike the previous governors. Nehemiah uses his own funds allocated to him in order to hold a banquet. This leads us to the next question: why does

Nehemiah embrace a king-like banquet?

It is narrated that one hundred and fifty people gathered around Nehemiah’s “table”

The mention of a table is particularly notable. Nehemiah 5:17 is the only place where .( ָחְלֻשׁ ן) a “table” is mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah. Two particular Greek sources (Athenaeus, Dinner of the Sophists and Plutarch, Artaxerxes [esp. 5.3]) emphasise the special nature of the “table” of the Persian king.77 Despite the lack of Persian sources, we can still say with confidence that a dining table setting was most appropriate for kings. This is how some ancient Near Eastern

74 “Of wine five hundred marises…” (Polyaenus, Stratagems, 4.3.32).

75 A number that Carter estimates (C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, JSOTSup 175 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1999], 195–213).

76 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 177. Batten estimates that the provisions would have fed up to six to eight hundred people (Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 246–47).

77 See, Dinner of the Sophists, 4.145.

156 cultures understood it,78 and the HB is no exception.79 Therefore, the scene of a table set up with great food quantities can be paralleled to a king’s banquet. This is most likely true in

Persian customs and certainly true in the HB.

We cannot overlook the identity of the one hundred and fifty: “Jews and officials, beside those who came to us from the nations around us” (Neh 5:17). Burt notices the international staff feasting at Nehemiah’s table and argues, “Nehemiah, in other words,

which ( םיִנָגְסַּה ) ”presides over his own Persian court…”80 A loanword is used for “officials may indicate foreign leadership,81 but the clearest evidence of foreign presence is found at the end of the 5:17, “those who came to us form the nations around us.” The addition of foreigners is odd. In the previous segments, Nehemiah’s aspiration to build the wall is made difficult due to outsiders—particularly Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab.

Nehemiah 4:1 notes that Sanballat speaks in the presence of the army of Samaria. Later in Neh

4:7 it is said that the Arabs, the Ammonites and the Ashdodites were “very angry” with the work of the wall. Each of these enemies are geographically surrounding Judah: Horonites to the north, Ammonites to the east, Ashdodites to the west, and Arabs to the south.82 The

78 See, Abraham Malamat, “The King’s Table and the Provisioning of Messengers: The Recent Old Babylonian Texts from Tuttul and the Bible,” IEJ 53 (2003): 172–77.

”as “table for king’s repast; for governor.” The addition of “for governor ָחְלֻשׁ ן BDB defines 79 is deduced from Neh 5:14, but this is the only time in the HB where a “governor” is said to have a table. A great many passages use “table” in reference to a king (e.g., 2 Sam 9:7–30; 1 Kgs 2:7; 4:27; 10:5; Dan 11:27; 2 Chr 9:4). It is therefore not surprising that a table of display is included in the tabernacle (Exod 25:28–30) (see, Pernille Carstens, “Why does the god have a cup in his hand?,” SJOT 12 [1998]: 220–21).

80 Burt, The Courtier and the Governor, 187–88.

is derived from Akkadian, šaknu and is most likely an Assyrian גס ן It is widely agreed that 81 loan (see, Thambyrajah, Loanwords in Biblical Literature, 230).

82 See, Israel Finkelstein, Hasmonean Realities behind Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, AIL 34 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018), 80–81.

157 surrounding nations are the enemies, but the identities of the attendees are not specified, thus

5:17 could be indicating nations beyond those who shared boarders, or perhaps those who were sympathetic to Nehemiah’s cause. It could also be the case that Nehemiah, as it were, was keeping his enemies close. This leads us to the possibility, as Burt argues, that Nehemiah was engaging in foreign diplomacy. This the most plausible reason why foreigners were brought to

Nehemiah’s banquets especially if we consider that the Persian king would discuss diplomatic matters near the king’s table.83

The inclusion of a table with an exorbitant amount of food and surrounding nations in

Neh 5:17 implies that Nehemiah is acting in a kingly fashion. Later in the narrative, Nehemiah denies the accusation of being a king (Neh 6:6–7), which confirms that he was acting like a king. This should be distinguished from being a king, however. There is no desire to overthrow the Persian king. Burt calls Nehemiah’s actions in Neh 5 “double loyalty.” That is, “his faithfulness to Persia, hides in the background…The faithfulness to Judah and Judah’s God that is the public face of NM’s [Nehemiah Memoir] portrayal of Nehemiah obscures the Persian influence that lies beneath.”84

6.4.4. Nehemiah’s King-like Prayers At various stages in the narrative, Nehemiah prays for remembrance: “Remember for my good,

O my God, all that I have done for this people” (Neh 5:19); “Remember Tobiah and Sanballat,

O my God, according to these things that they did, and also the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who wanted to make me afraid” (6:14); “Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levites” (13:29);

83 It must be said, however, that only a few esteemed individuals were permitted to interact with the kings (see, Llewellyn-Jones, King and the Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, 42–48).

84 Burt, The Courtier and the Governor, 188.

158 “Remember me, O my God, for good” (13:30).85 The phrase common amongst these verse

is particular to the book of ( יַהלֱא ) ”together with “O my God ( יִלּ־הָרְכָז ) ”remember me“

Nehemiah.86 Not only that, it is not common in the HB that a worshipper asks to be remembered

.There is a sense of uniqueness within these short prayers in the HB 87.( יַהלֱא ) ”for good“

However, the short prayers of Nehemiah cannot be said to be unique in the Persian context. A few scholars have pointed out that Nehemiah’s prayer resembles that of building and foundational inscriptions in the ancient Near East.88 Perhaps the closest parallel can be found in the so-called Wadi-Brisa inscription where Nebuchadnezzar II prays to Marduk, “do remember my deeds favourably as good [deeds], may (these) my good deeds be always before your mind…”89 Persian sources also contain similarities to Nehemiah’s prayers. There are at least two instances in the Persian inscriptions where a plea to Ahuramazda can be found.

Xerxes in the Daiva Inscription prays, “May Ahuramazda protect me, and my house, and this land. This I ask of Ahuramazda. This may Ahuramazda give to me.”90 Artaxerxes follows in

85 Contrary to various English versions I do not consider Neh 6:9 to be a prayer. The NIV adds “I prayed” and the NRSV and the ESV both add “O God.” There lacks textual warrant for these additions (see, Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 249).

86 Other characters in the HB do ask for remembrance, but the syntax is different: “Lord God, .(Sam 1:11 1)…( יִנַתְּרַכְז ) Judg 16:28); “… and remember me) ”… ( יִנֵרְכָז ) remember me

87 Anna Katrine de Hammer Gudme, Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim, BZAW 441 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 137n. 628.

88 Schulte, for instance, argues that because Nehemiah’s prayers for remembrance resembles various Persian Period inscriptions (e.g., Cyrus Cylinder §34–36; Statue of Udjahorresnet §47; Daiva Inscription §5) it fits well within the Sitz in der Literatur of the Persian royal propaganda model, thus it is likely that these prayers originate within the Nehemiah Memoir (Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 191).

89 “The Expedition to Syria,” trans. F. H. Weissbach (ANET, 307).

90 Lendering, “Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions: XPh (“Daiva Inscription”).

159 suit, “May Ahuramazda and the gods preserve me, my kingdom, and what I have built.”91

These are all examples of pleas to a deity for preservation.

One strong parallel between Nehemiah’s petition and the Persian ones cited above is their structure. Nehemiah’s prayers appear after significant events. The prayer in Neh 5:19 appears after Nehemiah works tirelessly for the benefit of his community; 6:14 appears after a near-death experience; 13:29 appears after witnessing the defilement of the priesthood and covenant; 13:31 appears after Nehemiah cleanses everything foreign. In a similar way, the petitions that are found in the Daiva Inscription and A1Pa both appear after significant achievements: Xerxes after destroying demonic places of worship and Artaxerxes after building a palace.

Building inscriptions which boast of the accomplishments of Israelite kings are absent in archaeological finds. Although there may be a number of reasons why we lack royal inscriptions, Rendsburg argues that the concept of royal inscriptions which boast of the work of a king runs contrary to Israel’s perception of what a monarch should be.92 A king was “to walk humbly with your LORD” (Mic 6:8), because “he [the LORD] adorns the humble with victory” (Ps 149:4). However, prayers for deliverance and preservation are found abundantly in the Psalms (e.g., Ps 86; 143) It is, therefore, unsurprising that Ezra-Nehemiah adds a petition which resembles inscriptions through a prayer rather than on a building.

The commonality between the petition of Nehemiah and both Persian kings’ petitions supports the possibility that Nehemiah replicates a similar style of prayer. Nehemiah, in some

91 Lendering, “Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions: A1Pa,” Livius, n.p. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/a1pa

92 Gary A. Rendsburg, “No Stelae, No Queens: Two Issues Concerning the Kings of Israel and Judah,” in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, ed. Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCullough, AASOR 60–61 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007), 95–97.

160 sense, is depicted like the king of Persia by asking his deity for remembrance. Like the kingly table setting in Neh 5, Nehemiah is displayed to be like a royal figure through his prayers. It is not the simple act of prayer that makes an individual royal, but the context and style in which they pray, namely Nehemiah’s prayer parallels the prayers found in the Persian royal inscriptions.

6.4.5. King Nehemiah? The narrative includes an intriguing detail in Nehemiah 6. Once the wall was complete except for its gates, the enemies of Judah ask for a meeting (6:1–2). Knowing their underlying motives,

Nehemiah rejects their invitation which invokes a serious accusation from Sanballat,

It is reported among the nations—and Geshem also says it—that you and the Jews intend to rebel; that is why you are building the wall; and according to this report you wish to become their king. You have also set up prophets to proclaim in Jerusalem concerning you, “There is a king in Judah!” And now it will be reported to the king according to these words. So come, therefore, and let us confer together (Neh 6:6–7).

However, Neh 6:8 shows that Nehemiah denies these charges, “Then I sent to him, saying, ‘No such things as you say have been done; you are inventing them out of your own mind.’” At the same time, it would be incorrect to say that Sanballat’s accusations are completely unreasonable. Nehemiah acts in a kingly way, but he is not a king.

As the above study indicates, Nehemiah acts in a kingly fashion in Neh 5. At the same time, it would be incorrect to accuse Nehemiah of being king or wanting to become king.

Nehemiah 5:19 indicates that Nehemiah is more concerned with his behaviour before YHWH and his prayer in chapter 1 also shows his allegiance to YHWH before anyone else (Neh 1:3–

11). Schulte correctly notes that Nehemiah understands that he is subservient to the king of

161 Persia.93 Nehemiah never attempts to visibly undermine Artaxerxes’ authority. Our protagonist is thus presented with nuance; Nehemiah is portrayed as good leader, but he is not a king and he never claims to be one.

Nehemiah has king-like qualities in his dealings with the repatriated community.

Nehemiah benevolently forfeits state luxuries for the sake of the people (Neh 5:15) and engages in foreign diplomacy (5:17–18) such that his enemies accuse him of establishing a monarchy in Jerusalem (6:6–8). However, Nehemiah is never portrayed to be a king. Having king-like qualities are far from actually being a king. Yet, this king-like character acts with more grace and fervour than the current king.

6.4.6. Summary Nehemiah 5 narrates the economic situation of the returned community. Amongst the difficulties of making a living in the land, the people are said to have been burdened by Persian taxes. Furthermore, the previous Persian governors were domineering representatives of the throne of Persia and made life difficult for the returnees. When Nehemiah assumes his role as governor, he reverses the wrongs of the former Persian governors to help the community. In fact, Nehemiah extends his role as a governor, and is presented like a kingly figure. A king- like table is set before him and surrounding nations and his prayers resemble royal Persian prayers. Through the narrative of Neh 5, there are clear demonstrations of dissatisfaction regarding the Persian rule. Overbearing Persian taxes and self-centred Persian governors are all results of the Persian empire.

93 Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 176.

162 6.5. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 8

One distinct element of the third-person narrations in Nehemiah is the appropriation of Persian systems. What will become evident in Neh 8 is the appropriation of Persian liturgy. In addition to appropriating Persian liturgy, the narrative alludes to the Exodus narrative and its theology.

The returned community are represented as being like the ancestors who escaped from slavery in Egypt. The only difference is that the nation in power is not the Egyptians but the Persians.

6.5.1. Nehemiah 8 and Persian Liturgy A recent study by Whitters convincingly identifies a number of liturgical parallels between the events presented in Neh 8:1–8 and the art and inscriptions of the Achaemenid Empire’s citty of Persepolis in the fifth-century.94 Whitters observes a rubric in Neh 8:1–8 where Ezra stands before the community and reads the law and the performative rubrics from Persian art and inscriptions. The two rubrics can be seen in the figure below:95

Neh 8:1–8 Persian Art and Inscriptions96 Verse Rubric Rubric 1 Popular gathering into a public Popular gathering into a public square square 1–3 Designated day and time Designated day and time (frieze, storeroom, courtyard implications) 2 Ceremonial procession of the Ceremonial procession Torah 3 Public recitation of Torah Public audience with the king 4 Wooden platform for ceremony Platform for ceremony and recognition and recognition 5 Designated trustees (on the right Designated trustees (on the right and and left) left)

94 Mark Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” JBL 136 (2017): 63–84.

95 Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” 68, 76.

96 The Persian rubric is observed by Whitters from twelve sources (Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” 70–75). Some of these include: Apadana staircase, east façade; Apadana platform, east façade; Naqš-e Rustam, tomb façade of Darius I; Behistun.

163 5 Opening (= elevation?) of the Proclamation of the king; tribute to the book king 5 People standing at attention People standing at attention 6 Blessing and response to Blessing and response to blessing blessing

6 People lift up their hands People lift up their hands to their mouths 6 People’s prostration Submission to king (or people’s prostration) 7 Transmission of teaching Transmission of government authority authority 8 Interpretation/instruction in Interpretation/instruction in alternative alternative languages (?) languages (?)

These parallels reveal some noteworthy observations. Whitters comments, “looming in the narrative background is the Persian hegemony with which Jewish nationalism must reckon.”97

One major point of contrast between these two rubrics is the Torah of YHWH venerated at the centre (Neh 8:1–8) while the Persian rubric has the king venerated. This point of contrast is heightened when accompanied by the inscriptions at Naqš-e-Rustam because they indicate that the king will extend his just dominion in the form of dāt.98 Readers of Ezra will know that the

is used five times in Ezra’s mission, so the idea of a nationally prescribed law ” תד “ same word is not new. However, the narrative seems to mimic the Persian rubric only to elevate the law of YHWH in the land of Jerusalem. There is no king in Jerusalem and neither Ezra nor

Nehemiah seeks to fill that gap (Neh 6:8), so the law in Neh 8:1–8 can be understood to replace the king.

97 Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” 78.

98 Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” 79. The inscription behind the king in Naqš-e Rustam relief reads, “By the favour of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside Persia; I ruled over them; they bore me tribute what was said to them by me, that they did; my law (Old Persian: data)—that they held firm…” (Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources Form the Achaemenid Period, 502).

164 The Behistun inscription also depicts Darius and Ahuramazda to be in a “uniquely reciprocal relationship that makes the speech-act of Darius the truth of Ahuramazda.”99 In Neh

8:1–2, Ezra is not the mouthpiece of YHWH. In fact, it is clear that the “book of the law of

Moses” was brought before the assembly (8:1). It is the law which essentially speaks to the people. The rubric that Ezra-Nehemiah follows is changed to fit the ideology of the Judeans. It is not the king of Persia that is venerated in Jerusalem, but the god of Israel. By extension, it is the Torah which governs communal life, not the dāt of Persia. The narrative then continues by expanding upon how the community form their lives around the law of God (Neh 8:9–18).

in Neh 8:4 was ( ץֵﬠ־לַדְּגִמ ) ”Whitters also suggests that the “wooden platform comparable to and had the same function as the rostrum where Darius II stood when proclaiming his decree to the nations.100 This is a scene is illustrated in the Apadana-palace relief. The Naqš-e Rustam, drawing of the tomb façade of Darius I, also illustrates the king standing upon a platform blessing and instructing the nations. Becking then criticises Whitters’ by noting that such a conclusion would suppose a royal role for Ezra.101 The parallel between the wooden platform and the rostrum is quite reasonable since the ritual is unprecedented in the Pentateuch.102 Becking’s extension of Whitter’s conclusion, however, is less warranted.

99 James Bowick, “Royal Ideology and Yehudite Identity,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblcal and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 106.

100 Whitters, “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8,” 76.

101 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 247.

appears a number of times in the HB (e.g., Gen 11:5; Judg 8:17; 2 לַדְּגִמ The Hebrew word 102 Kgs 17:9; Ps 48:13; Jer 31:38; Neh 3:1). The word is usually translated as “tower,” but platform in the context of Neh 8 is more suitable since thirteen people are standing beside each other. Williamson has pointed out a parallel in 2 Chron 6:13 where Solomon makes a bronze elevation for the dedication of the first temple (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 287). The platform in Neh 8:4 seems to serve a similar purpose: to elevate the person and the content which will be proclaimed. In the Neh 8:4, it is Ezra, but importantly, the law of God.

165 The narrative clearly puts the law in the centre of attention: The people stand up when the book of the law in opened (Neh 8:5); the people bow down in worship before the law is read out

(Neh 8:6); those trained in the law instruct the lay people on the law (Neh 8:8). Here the focus is the book of the law. Instead of the king of Persia standing on a platform to proclaim his decree, Neh 8 has Ezra proclaiming the law of God to the people of Israel.

This episode in Neh 8 also alludes to the scene in Neh 5:14–19 by emphasising a better style of rule conducted by Nehemiah. Instead of requiring food allowances to the governor,

Nehemiah commands the people to “eat fat and drink sweet wine and send portions of them to

”and “sweet wine ( םיִנַּמְשַׁמ ) ”those for whom nothing is prepared” (8:10). The two nouns “fat

are rare in the HB and refer to delicacies.103 Moreover, Nehemiah is portrayed as a ( םיִקַּתְמַמ ) compassionate ruler as he demands that some portions should be sent to those who had nothing prepared. Everyone was included in the festival, not just the political elites.

The above observations do not represent the Persian rule in a negative light, but it does reveal the narrative’s primary interest: the law. It is so important, in fact, that some Persian liturgical features are appropriated, resulting in the replacement of the Persian king with the law of YHWH. There is an obvious hierarchy of importance. The law and the king are not to be confused, and it is the first, not the second, that is most significant to the community.

6.5.2. Appropriating Sukkot: Egypt-like Persia The narrative includes the rediscovery of Sukkot. However, the addition of Sukkot is not a mere account of the events. A number of important elements from Sukkot are absent compared to the tradition in Lev 23–24, yet these absences can be unstood to be commentaries on the

103 Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b-10:40), 118.

166 present community’s journey from Persia to Jerusalem. In fact, the departure from Persia is compared to the exodus from Egypt.

in Neh 8:14–17 has been the subject ( תוֹכֻּסּ ) The discovery and performance of Sukkot of much debate. Scholars dispute the origin of Sukkot since there are a number of differences between the practices found in Neh 8:14–17 and Lev 23:40–43. For example, according to Neh

8:15 the people were to, “bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths.” Contrary to these commands, Lev 23:40 demands, “the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook.” Some scholars have thus argued that the tradition narrated in Neh 8 is different from Lev 23.104 However,

Harrington makes an appropriate observation that “the difference between Nehemiah 8 and

Leviticus 23 is one interpretation resulting from the ambiguous Leviticus text rather than different traditions.”105 Harrington alleviates the discrepancies as follows:

The author of Ezra-Nehemiah makes two plausible inferences from Lev 23:40–42: 1) that various types of tree branches are used in this sacred festival, and 2) that the tree branches are used to make the required booths. Consequently, he specifies particular trees which were available in his time and area; the “wild olive” is probably the Jerusalem Pine.106

104 E.g., John H. Choi, Traditions at Odds: The Reception of the Pentateuch in Biblical and Second Temple Period Literature, LHBOTS 518 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 83–87; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 157.

105 Hannah K. Harrington, “The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JHebS 13 (2013): 15.

106 Harrington, “The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 15.

167 Fishbane and Williamson also note the various Second Temple exegetical techniques that could have been used at the time.107 Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the text is drawing from the same tradition as Lev 23 but interprets them and applies them in its context.

Leviticus describes the reason for celebrating Sukkot, “so that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel live in booths when I brought them out of the land of

Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Lev 23:43). However, in the story of Neh 8, there is no mention of the relief from Egypt. Although Nehemiah lacks any mention of Egypt, it is implied through Neh 8:14, “…the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the people of Israel should live in booths during the festival of the seventh month.” There is no other festival distinguished through the building of booths on the seventh month other than Sukkot in Lev 23. Moreover, the tradition is said to be “from the days of Jeshua son of Nun…” The community’s returning from the exile are being associated with those who exited from Egypt and entered into the promise land through reference to Jeshua. Therefore, without being said explicitly, the narrative links the exit from Egypt with the exit from Persia.

One major difference between Neh 8 and Lev 23 is the absence of Yom Kippur. This absence, interestingly, has a part to play in the purpose behind including Sukkot. Yoo has argued that the Day of Atonement was largely impractical for the author because, “EM [Ezra

Memoir] views the place where the people gather, the Water Gate (Neh. 8:1), as an inappropriate place of sacrifice.”108 This is indeed possible. Kidner similarly suggests that since

107 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 109–12; H. G. M. Williamson, “History,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 29–31.

108 Philip Y. Yoo, Ezra and the Second Wilderness, OTM (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 156.

168 the day in Nehemiah is not a pilgrimage festival, its significance is lesser for the author.109

There may also be a complementary explanation; the author desires to place his greatest focus on the exodus element upon Sukkot. This is made evident in the specification that “all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them” (Neh

is unique to the ( בשה י ם מ ן ־ בשה י ) ”The phrase “those who had returned from captivity .(8:17

aspect; or, in other words, leaving ( וש ב ) ”section and uniquely emphasises the “returning

Persia.110

On a technical level, an exodus motif does not necessarily portray the Persian rule in a negative light. After all, Persia can be seen as the nation who brought the nation of Israel out of Babylon and into the “promised land.” One factor, however, makes this point untenable. It was mentioned earlier that there is a lack of distinction between the rule of Assyria and the rule of Persia (Ezra 6:22),111 and a similar point is made in Neh 13:6 when the Persian king is called,

There is a blurred distinction between ”.( ראַ תְּ חַ שְׁ סַ תְּ אְ לֶ מ בּ־ךֶ בָ לֶ ) King Artaxerxes of Babylon“ the rule of Babylon, the nation which took the Israel into exile, and the rule of Persia. Now that the community have left Persia, they celebrate Sukkot which imitates the celebration of the nation’s escape from Egypt.

6.5.3. Summary The appropriation of Persian liturgy shows what the narrative believes to be important. The king of Persia is a powerful figure, but the narrative mimics Persian liturgy in order to heighten

109 Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 108.

110 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 296.

111 See 8.2.5.2.

169 the law of YHWH. The legislation of the law in the land of Jerusalem is placed on a higher level than the king of Persia and his decrees. Persia’s negative depiction finds its climax in the second example of appropriation: the appropriation of the Exodus event. The climactic event of the Exodus is alluded to through Sukkot and through this allusion the leaving of Persia is equated with the escape from Egypt. This is by no means a positive equivalence made within the narrative.

6.6. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 9

Once Sukkot is performed, we are told that a reform takes place. The people fast (Neh 9:1) and those of Israelite descent separate themselves from all foreigners and confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors (9:2). The book of the law is then read out again (9:3) and in the midst of these reforms, a prayer is lifted to YHWH.112 Within the prayer we find a negative portrayal of the Persian king.

The prayer in Neh 9:6–37 has been largely thought to be a negative portrayal of the

Persian monarchy. This has often puzzled scholars who have thought overwhelmingly that the

112 Much has been discussed concerning the diachronic question of influence within Neh 9:6– 37. Welch, for instance, argues that chapter 9 is influenced by Deuteronomy (A. C. Welch, “The Source of Nehemiah IX,” ZAW 47 [1929]: 130–37). There are also some who find connections between Nehemiah 9 and Joshua 24 (Christophe Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua,” in The Pentateuch as Torah, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 196. Cf., Thomas Römer, “Pentateuque, Hexateuque et Historiographie Deutéronomiste: Le Problème Du Début et de La Fin Du Livre de Josué,” Transeu 16 [1998]: 71–86), and even the book of Ezekiel 20 (Waldemar Chrostowski, “An Examination of Conscience by God’s People as Exemplified in Neh. 9,6–37,” BZ 34 [1990]: 253–61; Gili Kugler, “Present Affliction Affects the Representation of the Past: An Alternative Dating of Levitical Prayer in Nehemiah 9,” VT 63 [2013]: 622). Gunneweg argues that the prayer follows the Deuternomistic works and also presumes Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly works (Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Nehemia, KAT 19.2 [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1987], 129). Boda’s proposal that “Priestly/Ezekielian circles supplemented and superseded a Deuteronomistic foundation” is reasonable (Boda, Praying the Tradition, 196).

170 rest of Nehemiah was pro-Persian.113 The statement which represents the most anti-Persian sentiment is found in 9:36–37, “Here we are, slaves to this day—slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts. 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 our

( דבע י ם ) ”livestock at their pleasure, and we are in great distress.” The self-designation “slaves and the mention of the yield of their fruit being taken by the king, on face value, seems like a grievance brought against the rule of Persia.

Oeming has contributed a more positive reading of Neh 9. He argues that the use

in 9:36 is a translation of the Old Persian bandaka- which was used by the םיִדָבֲﬠ of

Achaemenids to describe their subjects as, in Oeming’s words, “well-regarded allies of the

in 9:36 portrays the current םיִדָבֲﬠ Persian Empire.”114 Thus, Oeming argues that the use of community in a better light than the previous generation.115 Against this Janzen has argued that

Oeming’s conclusions do not fit in the context of the prayer’s final verses. Janzen correctly

is the result of their דבע י ם identifies that “according to the prayer, the community’s status as sin, not a reward of their righteousness.”116

113 Chrostowski, “An Examination of Conscience by God’s People as Exemplified in Neh. 9,6– 37,” 261–62; Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b-10:40), 231–32; H. G. M. Williamson, “Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9,” in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, FAT 38 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 289–90; Klass A. D. Smelik, “Nehemiah as a ‘Court Jew,’” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, ed. Isaac Kalimi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 71.

114 Manfred Oeming, “‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 579.

115 Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehemiah 9:36), 579–80.

116 David Janzen, “Yahwistic Appropriation of Achaemenid Ideology and the Function of Nehemiah 9 in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JBL 136 (2017): 844.

171 Kugler argues that “[n]owhere in writings of the return to Zion (Ezra-Nehemiah or second Isaiah) do we find a hint of the desire to be freed from the burden of the Persian Empire and its foreign kings.”117 Freedom is indeed not a topic that the author specifically dwells on.

However, this does not mean that the author has a positive perspective on foreign occupancy.

The author understands that being under Persia’s rule is indeed better than being obliterated from the face of the earth. The prayer in Ezra 9:13–14 makes this abundantly clear with

YHWH’s grace being equated with the existence of a remnant. The prayer in Neh 9 does not make this point explicitly, but inferences can be made since Neh 9:33 declares that God has been “just in all that has come upon us, and you [YHWH] have dealt faithfully and we have

,living under foreign rule (9:32). However ( האָָלְתּ ) ”acted wickedly” in relation to their “burden we cannot disregard the fact that the prayer highlights the sinful nature of the community and it is precisely because of their sins that their rich yield goes to the king of Persia and the foreign nation have dominion over their bodies (9:36). Therefore, even though it is correct that living under Persian rule is better than being destroyed, it is still not an ideal situation and the precise result of sin.

Janzen’s proposal that Persian occupancy is the best possible reality for the community, is difficult to make sense of in light of Neh 9:38,118 “Because of all this we make a firm agreement in writing…” The community would, then, be making an agreement of obedience with the hope of restoration despite being in the best possible outcome. Although this reading is difficult to conceive, it is still possible. The author may be representing the community in an

117 Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People, 131.

118 There is some debate regarding the placement of Neh 9:38. Most argue that v.38 is not part of the prayer (e.g., Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 331–32; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 312; Schulte, My Shepherd, Though You Do Not Know Me, 178–82), while others see it as the conclusion of the prayer (Oeming, “‘See, We Are Serving Today’ [Nehemiah 9:36],” 573; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 282). Although the MT does end the textual unit at the end of v.37, a strong case can be made that grammatically and syntactically v.37 is directly connected to v.38.

172 extremely positive light; that is, whatever the future, the returnees stay obedient to YHWH.

However, in the context of the prayer this is unlikely. Ezra’s recapitulation of Israel’s journey has a heavy emphasis on obedience, and how despite Israel’s disobedience YHWH annihilated foreign “kingdoms” (9:22) and “kings” (9:22; 24) so that Israel would enter into the land (9:25).

The prayer then juxtaposes this by noting Israel’s “kings” (9:34) who disobeyed and the

“kingdoms” (9:35) did not serve YHWH, thus resulting in slavery (9:36). There is a focus on land and kingship in the prayer, and there is a nostalgic but depressing tone; what was supposed to be theirs, given by YHWH, is now given to the kings of Persia. Living under the Persian empire cannot be construed to be the best possible or even somewhat of an ideal situation in the narrative.

Overall, the prayer should be acknowledged to have a negative portrayal of Persia. This portrayal, however, is nuanced. Persia is the nation that the community are “slaves” under, but this situation is only realised because of Israel’s failure to obey YHWH. In this case, living under Persian rule is represented as a dissatisfying situation. If Israel had kept obedient to

YHWH’s laws, then they would not have been handed over to the other nations.

6.7. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 11

6.7.1. Wrong Influence In Neh 11:22–24, we read,

The overseer of the Levites in Jerusalem was Uzzi son of Bani son of Hashabiah son of Mattaniah son of Mica, of descendants of Asaph, the singers, in charge of the work of the house of God. For there was a command from the king concerning them, and a settled provision for the singers, as was required every day. And Pethahiah son Meshezabel, of the descendants of Zerah son Judah, was at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people.

173 The first part of the passage deals with Uzzi the “overseer of the Levites” and his lineage.

Uzzi’s lineage justifies his position as the head of the Levites, so there is nothing unusual about it. In verse 23, however, there is a concerning statement that the king had commanded

“them”—a royal regulation—that there be daily singing. The king’s involvement in the cultic affairs of Jerusalem is rather odd in the narrative. While in reality Persian oversight over religious affairs would have been the norm, it is rather abrupt in the flow of the narrative. The king had not been interested in the internal affairs of Jerusalem since Neh 2:9, and so, this command by the king in 11:22–24 can be said to be unexpected. Additionally, 11:24 mentions that Pethahiah was involved with relaying the community’s activities to the king.

Some have assessed this segment of Nehemiah to be a positive portrayal of Persia.

Becking sees this as the editor’s declaration that the cult of Israel was sustained by the Persian king.119 Schulte also notes the possibility that the author implies YHWH’s authorisation of

Artaxerxes.120 These observations, however, are difficult to sustain. Earlier in the narrative, the people enter into the agreement that they will, “observe and do all the commandments of the

LORD our Lord and his ordinances and his statutes” (Neh 10:29). However, in Neh 11:23 the

is itself ” תַוְצִמ ךֶלֶמַּה “ The very use of .( תַוְצִמ ךֶלֶמַּה ) ”people follow the “command of the king

in Ezra-Nehemiah is linked with YHWH’s תַוְצִמ noteworthy since almost every other use of law,121 and 11:23 is the only instance where this word in used in connection with Artaxerxes.

in a context outside of YHWH תַוְצִמ A subtle contrast is made here and the appearance of

119 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 299.

120 Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 183.

צמ ו ת Ezra 7:11; 9:10, 14; 10:3; Neh 1:5, 7, 9; 9:13, 16, 29, 34; 10:29. Two occurrences use 121 in conjunction with David (Neh 12:24, 45), and once in reference to Tobiah (Neh 13:5).

174 creates a troubling mood. The people who have just agreed to follow YHWH’s commandments are following Artaxerxes’ commandments for the liturgy of the house of God.122

Additionally, in Neh 11:23 the narrative contains particular language: “For there was a

הָנָמֲא This word ”.[ הָנָמֲאַו ] command from the king concerning them, and a settled provision

in 9:38 is used הָנָמֲא .agreement) appears twice in Nehemiah; once in Neh 9:38 and in 11:23)

רֹכּ םיִתְ ) ”within the context where the community declare that they would “make an agreement

to obey the commandments of YHWH (10:28–31). The “agreement” in 11:23, on the ( הָנָמֲא other hand, is not with YHWH but with the king of Persia. The promises that were proposed and ratified through a written agreement in 9:38 are not sustained by the community. Therefore,

Both words are key in the repatriates’ vow to . הָנָמֲא and תַוְצִמ :two words are used in contrast follow YHWH, but their association has switched from YHWH to Artaxerxes.

The way in which the narrative reintroduces King Artaxerxes in Neh 11 is quite noteworthy. The text has yet to mention any intervention by the king since Neh 2:1–8; when

Nehemiah is commissioned to rebuild the walls. In reality, Persian auspices would have kept a close eye on most, if not all, activities, but this fact is omitted until Neh 11:23. The king’s influence is absent when the community is threatened by outsiders (4:7–8) and when Persian representatives were extorting funds (Neh 5:15). But when tributes and the worship of God are concerned, the king is suddenly reintroduced and seems to find interest. In all matters concerning the people, it is said that Pethahiah was at the king’s side (11:24).123

122 It must be noted, however, that singing every day is not discouraged in the HB. Although the Pentateuchal texts do not demand daily singing, 1 Chr 9:33 shows that singers were on duty “day and night.”

123 Pethahiah’s identity remains ambiguous. He is considered to be part of the community through his ancestry (Neh 11:24). Pethahiah may have been a local official reporting to the central government (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 327), but this is unclear in the text. All we know is that he was in conversation with the king concerning the community.

175 The evidence from the Persian period demonstrates that the Persian kings were invested in local cults,124 and this is no different in the narrative of Neh 11. However, two things can be

in reference to obeying הָנָמֲא and תַוְצִמ drawn from these observations. Firstly, the use of

Artaxerxes instead of YHWH, especially in light of Neh 10 and 11, creates an unsettling mood.

The cult of YHWH which is supposed be guided by the law is now partially guided by

Artaxerxes. Secondly, the reality of the king’s influence upon the community is made abundantly clear. The cry in 9:36–37 is manifested in the cultic practices of the community.

Although the returnees enjoy certain freedoms under Persian auspices, this freedom is certainly not complete.

6.7.2. Reversing Wrong Influence In the above section, it was argued that the king’s influence upon the worship of God in Neh

11:23 creates an uneasy mood. The people, for the most part of Neh 10–11, pledge to follow

of God, but 11:23 reveals that parts of the logistics surrounding ( תַוְצִמ ) ”the “commandment the temple singers was directed by the Persian king. The narrative then returns to the topic of temple arrangements for singing and worship only to reiterate that worship was eventually completed according to Israelite tradition.

The text reveals that although Uzzi was in charge of the work of the house (Neh 11:22), it was in fact Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua (son of Kadmiel) who were the heads (Neh

12:24). These three should be considered to be authoritative figures within the Levites as their names are also found on the sealed document in Neh 10. Moreover, it is made clear in 11:26

124 For example, the Cyrus Cylinder describes Cyrus’ efforts to support various cults (§31–34). Similarly, the Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that Cyrus’ troops did not interfere with the cult of Esagila (17–18). Darius, as described on the Statue of Udjahorresnet, certainly helped the flourishing of the Egyptian cult (43–44).

176 that these three individuals were indeed the heads at the time of Joiakim, Nehemiah, and

Ezra.125 It is these three individuals who guide worship “according to the commandment of

Neh 12:24]). Essentially, there is a correction] תַוְצִמְבּ דיִוָדּ םיִהלֱאָה־שׁיִא ) ”David the man of God in how worship was conducted. The narrative omits any influence of the king which was mentioned in 11:22 and only indicates that worship was inspired by the commandment of

David. No longer was the Persian king’s influence visible in the worship of God.

Not only were the older generation worshiping YHWH in accordance with David’s commandments, but the new generation also follow. The worship of YHWH is further elaborated at the dedication of the wall with half of the officials and “some of the young priests”

Neh 12:35])—in other words, the next generation of priests with the current] יֵנְבִּמ םיִנֲהֹכַּה )

ריִשׁ־יֵלְכִבּ ) ”leaders—were worshiping “with the musical instruments of David the man of God

Again, practice of worship with reference to King David is .([12:36] דיִוָדּ שׁיִא םיִהלֱאָה highlighted. This particular pericope (Neh 12:31–37) recalls Israel’s great king David. Those who dedicated the temple are said to have ascended the stairs of the “city of David, at the ascent

125 Joiakim’s linage is confusing due to the discrepancies that exists between Neh 12:10–11 and 12:22. The earlier reference lists six names in linear genealogical format that begins with Jeshua and ends with Jaddua. Neh 12:22, on the other hand, beings with Eliashab and ends with Jaddua and records only four names. Because this impacts the reconstruction of the history of Persian-period Yehud, it has drawn attention in biblical scholarship. For differing views see, Frank M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975): 4–18; Klaus Koch, “Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood,” in “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael A. Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 105–10; James C. VanderKam, “Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan, LHBOTS 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2009), 67– 97; James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 54–55. Among the suggested solutions, Fulton’s proposal is most plausible (Deirdre N. Fulton, “Jeshua’s ‘High Priestly’ Lineage? A Reassessment of Nehemiah 12.10-11,” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Lester L. Grabbe, LSTS 73 [New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 94– 115). Fulton convincingly argues that Neh 12:10–11 should be read as a lineage of Jeshua’s descendants and not strictly as a list of high priestly successions.

177 of the wall, above the house of David” (12:37).126 Why David is not titled as “king” here is uncertain (cf., Ezra 3:10) but it is nevertheless clear that the worship is said to have been conducted in continuity with David.

The narrative makes a third reference to David in Neh 12:45, “They performed the service of their God and the service of purification, as did the singer and the gatekeepers, according to the command of David and his son Solomon” (12:45). The phrase “according to

and the reference is reminiscent of 12:24 and 12:36. Here a reversal of ( צמכ ו ת ) ”the command

Artaxerxes’ influence on the cult takes place. It is unclear if the text indicates that everything was reversed, but it does indicate that at least some of the liturgical features were restored.

There is a constant desire to return to how worship used to be. This is warranted by the persistent repetition and reference to the David’s command in order to strengthen the continuity between the liturgy that existed in David’s time and the repatriates’,127 “For in the days of

David and Asaph long ago there was a leader of the singers, and there were songs of praise and thanksgiving to God” (12:46).

There is no evidence to suggest that the author wants to be influenced by the Persian king. This is an important point. Amalgamating Persian liturgical concepts seem permissible in so far as YHWH or the law is publicised, yet when the king actively intervenes, this is portrayed to be problematic. We see this to be true here in Neh 11. The functioning of the temple is considered to be best when the liturgy is associated with David.

126 The historical realities behind this verse are rather uncertain. Williamson correctly notes that the “house of David” would have been destroyed by the Babylonian destruction. But he does suggest that its place may have still been known (Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 374).

127 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 312.

178 6.8. ARTAXERXES IN NEHEMIAH 13

Within the Nehemiah memoir, scholars have noticed an unusual title given to Artaxerxes,

Wright points out that the first .([13:6] ראַ תְּ חַ שְׁ סַ תְּ אְ לֶ מ בּ־ךֶ בָ לֶ ) ”King Artaxerxes of Babylon“ person accounts mention the Persian king over fifteen times, “yet always simply as ‘the king’ and never ‘the king of Persia,’ let alone ‘the king of Babylon.’”128 The question regarding the use of this title is its intent.

Mowinckel, Kellermann, and Rudolph all propose that this account was added later in the editorial activity.129 Such redactional conclusions indicate the perceived oddity of this phrase in the book of Nehemiah. The title may have been used by the Achaemenid king himself which was then added to the text.130 Yet within the two sources we have of Artaxerxes, he never calls himself “king of Babylon.” Because the title “king of Babylon” has been found in the Babylonian sources, Schulte argues that the title is appropriate.131 However, the title “king of Babylon” for a Babylonian society means something completely different for the Judean community; the nation of Judah were exiled from their lands by the Babylon Empire.

Throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, the reference to Babylon is always negative.132 “Babylon” is used in reference to King Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the first temple and took captive the

128 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 193.

129 Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemiah: Quellen, Überlieferung, und Geschichte, BZAW 102 (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1967), 47–51; Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift, vol. 2, Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964), 34–39; Rudolph, Esra Und Nehemia, 203.

130 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 387.

131 See, Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 190.

132 Ezra 5:14, 17; 6:1, 5; 7:9 refer to “Babylon” as a city. Every other instance refers to Babylon as ruling entity.

179 residence of Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1; 5:12, 14; 6:5; 7:6). 133 This negative understanding of

Babylon increases the likelihood of the title being a negative attribution given to Artaxerxes.

The context of the passage leans towards a negative perception of King Artaxerxes.

Nehemiah 13:4 introduces the outworking of Eliashib’s nepotism. Tobiah, Eliashib’s relative, is given a large room which was not the original purpose of the room (Neh 13:5). The reason such corruptions could take place was because, “I [Nehemiah] was not in Jerusalem…” (13:6).

The lack of explanation for Nehemiah’s absence has troubled commentators.134 While the narrative implies that Nehemiah’s work in Jerusalem was never perpetual (cf., Neh 2:6), a more profound reality is that Nehemiah was still under Persia’s jurisdiction. It was because of that reality the leader of a reforming Jerusalem was required to return to Persia. Although many of the exiles had returned home, Nehemiah was still in one sense in exile. This indicates that

Nehemiah’s absence due to the Persian monarch caused a disruption in the progression to reform.135 The title “King of Babylon” here in Neh 13:6 does not seem to be a banal statement.

The king is given this title because his actions echo the actions of the King of Babylon who took the Israelites into exile.

133 The only exception is found in Ezra 5:13 where a letter to Darius calls Cyrus, “King Cyrus of Babylon.” However, this comparison is not helpful. As Williamson aptly notes, “…because special considerations governed the terminology there, but they do not obtain here” (Williamson, Ezra- Nehemiah, 387). This is indeed true. As mentioned, the title is used within a letter to King Darius about King Cyrus (Ezra 5:6). Moreover, the title “King of Babylon” is one that Cyrus uses in the Cyrus Cylinder (§20); a title not used by Artaxerxes.

134 E.g., Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 386–87; Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 318.

135 Nehemiah’s return to Artaxerxes can be seen as part of his duty. In fact, the whole narrative of Nehemiah’s return can be interpreted as merely a description of operations within Persian administration. However, one wonders if Nehemiah had not been absent, would Eliashib have given Tobiah a room in the house of God (Neh 13:4–5). We cannot ignore the fact that the outworking of nepotism in Jerusalem flourished in Nehemiah’s absence, and the reason for his absence is the king of Persia.

180

6.9. SUMMARY

From the above analysis, there is demonstratable evidence that Artaxerxes rule is presented to be ultimately unsatisfactory. King Artaxerxes is not de facto a king in favour of the repatriated people, nor is he commissioned by YHWH. He is treated as nothing more than a mere man (cf.,

Neh 1:11) that needed convincing about the work of God. The process of convincing is elaborated as Nehemiah’s shrewd actions are narrated (Neh 2) and eventually YHWH is given all credit for the king’s favourable response to the request that a wall should be built in Yehud

(2:18). Despite receiving a favourable response from Artaxerxes, the narrative detaches the king’s influence in Yehud by not utilising the royal letters in the land (cf., 2:9–18). Nehemiah never introduces the king’s letters to the returnees, and even when enemies question the authority behind the construction of the wall (2:19), King Artaxerxes and his letters are never applied.

Moreover, the rule of Persia is portrayed to have a negative impact upon the repatriated group, but Nehemiah acts to reverse the misfortunes Persia had inflicted. One reason behind the community’s sufferings is due to the king’s tax. Not only that, the empire’s statute that all governors were to be given a portion of food was a burden to the community, a burden that could not be changed under Persian rule. However, Nehemiah enters in like a kingly figure and forgoes the governor’s portion for the sake of the people. Nehemiah also takes the initiative to make diplomatic relationships, like a king would, through holding a feast with his own funds.

Therefore, an implicit comparison is made between Nehemiah and the king of Persia.

Nehemiah is, of course, the better leader. At the same time, the text never describes Nehemiah as a king.

A fascinating element of the narrative is the appropriation of Persian systems.

Nehemiah 8 displays evidence of appropriation, as the sequence of events for the veneration of

181 the law is similar to Persian liturgy, but in place of the Persian king and his decree stands Ezra and the law of God. Additionally, Sukkot is repurposed in the narrative to create a parallel between the Persian Empire and the oppressive nation of Egypt during the exodus.

Perhaps the most explicit example of dissatisfaction of the Persian rule is found in the

Levites prayer (Neh 9). Through the prayer Nehemiah believes that Persian reigns over the community because of their sin, living under the Persian rule is considered to be slavery, and the blessings that were provided to them by YHWH are now given to the King of Persia. So,

Neh 13 concludes by claiming that Artaxerxes resembles “the king of Babylon” who had initially exiled the nation of Israel.

182

Chapter 7

NON-CHRONOLOGY AND BILINGUALISM

Before we enter into an overview of the fulfilment of objectives within Ezra-Nehemiah, I want to pay attention to the lack of chronology and the shift in language in Ezra-Nehemiah. Four

Persian kings are mentioned in correct chronological order Ezra 4:5–7: Darius is implied to be the king after Cyrus (4:5); Xerxes I (Ahasuerus) is the subsequent king that is mentioned (4:6); and Artaxerxes is the king after Xerxes (4:6). However, the narrative obscures the chronology in Ezra 4–6. Instead of having Darius following Cyrus, Artaxerxes is placed before Darius.1

Additionally, the narrative shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic (and vice versa) throughout the narrative.

Some scholars have proposed that the shift between languages has ideological motivations.2 Here it will be argued that the shift in languages may also reflect political motivations. Moreover, it is not only the change in language that can be understood to have underlying motivations, but also the lack of chronology in Ezra-Nehemiah. The non- chronological text too has both literary and ideological ends. Ultimately, some of these ideological ends affect the representation of the Persian kings.

1 1 Esdras also anachronistically places the reign of Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius (1 Esd 2:4–18). For an extended comment see, Michael Bird, 1 Esdras: Introduction and Commentary on the Greet Text in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 132–39.

2 For instance, Laird writes, “The author has literary and, even more importantly, ideological motives for this tangled text” (Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 150). See also, Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria.”

183 7.1. THE PERSIAN KINGS IN THE NON-CHRONOLOGICAL TEXT

Ancient texts had no hesitation in presenting things non-chronologically for literary or other purposes. We can therefore agree with Throntveit that “Ezra-Nehemiah consistently subordinates chronology to theology.”3 In the case of Ezra 4, scholars have offered various solutions. Upon evaluation, however, the non-chronological structure of the narrative ultimately ends with an indictment upon Artaxerxes. Before entering into a study of the specific texts, we will first survey previous interpretations of the non-chronological narrative.

7.1.1. Previous Interpretations Eskenazi observes a number of parallels between Ezra 4 and 5–6 and thus interprets chapter 4 as a flash-forward which enables a juxtaposition between the events in the reign of Artaxerxes

(Ezra 4) and the events which transpire in the reign of Darius (Ezra 5–6).4 The “(re)built” and

“finished” terminologies which exist in Ezra 4 (4:12, 13, 16) are correspondingly a Leitmotiv in Ezra 5–6 (5:2, 3, 4, 9; 6:3, 14). So, Eskenazi concludes, “Building of the house of God implies, by virtue of these letters, the building of the city and the walls. The tasks are mere extensions of each other.”5 As Oeming and Hurowitz has shown, ancient Near Eastern texts

3 Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, 121. Sternberg sees the use of “temporal displacement” as a style that can be adopted by a biblical author. In other words, “chronological versus non-chronological narration” (Meir Sternberg, “Telling the Time [I]: Chronology and Narrative Theory,” Poetics Today 11 [1990]: 902. C.f., Greg Goswell, “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” TJ 31 [2010]: 187). Williamson also correctly notes that “[h]owever the fact that iv. 5 has already brought the narrative down to the reign of Darius suggests that we should not quickly conclude that the author blundered owing to insufficient historical knowledge” (H. G. M. Williamson, “Composition of Ezra I- VI,” JTS 34 [1983]: 16).

4 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 55.

5 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 55.

184 also conceive the enclosing wall as a mark of the completion of the temple’s holy area.6

Extending these conclusions, Goswell also contributes by proposing that Ezra 4, “hints how the impasse of a partially rebuilt temple will be overcome,”7 and Ezra 4 “helps to produce a negative characterisation of the ‘people(s) of the lands.’”8

Similar to Eskenazi, scholars Mallau, Matzal, and Laird have made parallels between

Ezra 4 and Ezra 5–6.9 These parallels are illustrated in the table below:

Narrative Structure of Ezra 4:11–6:22

Ezra 4 Ezra 5–6

4:1–5 Initial encounter with outsiders 5:1–5

4:3 Actions are obedience to Cyrus’ command 5:13

4:4 Effect of outsiders on progress of work 5:5

4:6–16 A request 5:6–17

4:15 Search for background information in archives 5:17

4:17–22 A royal decree 6:1–12

4:23–24 Enactment of the decree 6:13–15

Conclusion 6:19–22

6 Oeming, “The Real History: The Theological Ideas behind Nehemiah’s Wall,” 147–48; Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, 118–24.

7 Goswell, “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 194–95

8 Goswell, “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 194–95. Goswell also notes that the juxtaposition of “historically disparate events” prepares the reader for “Ezra’s strenuous measures against intermarriage with foreigners (Ezra 9–10).”

9 Hans H. Mallau, “The Redaction of Ezra 4–6: A Plea for a Theology of Scribes,” PRSt 15 (1988): 70–75; Stefan Matzal, “Short Notes on the Structure of Ezra 4–6,” VT 50 (2000): 566–68; Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah, 150–51.

185

The table above shows the parallels that exists between Ezra 4 and 5–6. Mallau argues that the juxtaposing stories demonstrate that the returnees’ goals ought to be achieved through subtle persuasion and political sagacity rather than undiplomatic confrontations.10 While this may be correct, it is a relatively minor point in the narrative. As shown in the previous chapter, the community’s dealings with the foreign people is problematised through their reasoning and not their lack of persuasive tactics.

Recently, Becking has offered a narratological approach to Ezra 4. After formulating a

“main narrative program” of Ezra 3–6,11 Becking adopts German literary scholar Quasthoff’s concept of Planbruch (frustration).12 Planbruch is a story-element that not only makes the narrative more appreciable—that is, more dynamic—but also highlights the pointe (point) in the story. The point in Becking’s analysis is as follows, “The desire to (re)build the temple in

Jerusalem—in order to celebrate Passover—is not only the initiative of some ‘returnees’, but ultimately has divine (episode 10 [Ezra 5:3–5]) and imperial (episode 13 [6:6–12]) support.”13

Therefore, in Becking’s understanding, the reason for the narrative structure is to create a dynamic story which highlights the divine and imperial support for the rebuilding of the temple.

10 Mallau, “The Redaction of Ezra 4–6,” 78.

11 The phrase “main narrative program” was coined by van Wolde. The method of identifying the “main narrative program” is to arrange the various narratives within the text (“narrative lines”) in a hierarchical structure in which a single “programme” is formed. That programme forms the main narrative program” (Ellen van Wolde, A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2-3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden, SSN 25 [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989], 59–60).

12 Uta M. Quasthoff, Erzählen in Gesprächen, Kommunikation und Institution 1 (Tübingen: Narr, 1980), 53–60.

13 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 52.

186 Mentioning Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 poses no chronological issues for Becking, however. Becking argues that Darius in Ezra 5–6 is not Darius I, but Artaxerxes’ son Darius II.

Overall, these contributions are helpful considerations towards a greater understanding of the purpose behind the achronological structure of Ezra 4–6. Observing the parallels between

Ezra 4 and 5–6 show that there exists a juxtaposition; two different rulers with two different results. Moreover, Becking’s narratological approach establishes the focus of the story—that is, the divine and imperial initiative to rebuild the temple. However, these studies have yet to notice anything about the presentation of the Persian king other than the results of their rule.

In the subsequent section, I intend to build upon these conclusions.

7.1.2. A Chronological Mistake? Chronologically, Darius sat on the throne before Artaxerxes, but Ezra 4:23–24 reverses a well- known kingly succession,

Then when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates, they hurried to the Jews in Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. At that time the work on the house of God in Jerusalem stopped and was discontinued until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia.

If the narrative had this mixed up, it may be an example of historical blunder. But for several reasons this may not be the case.

Becking has argued that King Darius in Ezra 4:24 refers to Darius II (Ochus), and not

Darius I.14 This proposal is certainly attractive since it would alleviate the idea that there is a mistake within the text.. However, Fried observes a problem with Darius II being the king

14 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 48.

187 referenced in the book, “If Darius II were meant, then the order of the kings would be correct, but then we would have Zerubbabel and Jeshua active from the time of Cyrus (530 BCE at the latest) to the time of Darius II, over one hundred years.”15 There is the possibility of intentional shifting of events. We have reasons to suppose that the author has knowledge of the correct order of Persian kings. Ezra 6:14 lists the kings in correct order, “Cyrus, Darius and

Artaxerxes,”16 and Ezra 4:4–7 lists the kings in order, also including Ahasuerus (Xerxes) to the list. If the text shows some knowledge of the correct chronology but decides to selectively obscure it, then Darius I would be a better referent for the king in the narrative rather than

Darius II. Moreover, Zerubbabel and Jeshua’s old age would also make the reign of Darius II unlikely.

The story of Artaxerxes’ reign in Ezra 4:1–23 is thematically connected to the Ezra 5–

6 yet it remains distinct in what it believes needs to be constructed. While Ezra 5–6 clearly refer to a “house,” 4:1–23 refers to a “city.” The city walls and the city itself were acknowledged to be part of the temple in the ancient Near East. So, the focus of “city” in 4:1–

23 is not thematically disjointed from the rest of the narrative. However, the story which unfolds during Artaxerxes’ reign never mentions “the house of God”, an object of building which occurs multiple times in Darius’ letter (5:3 [x2], 5 [x2], 7 [2x], 8, 12). The Artaxerxes

15 Fried, Ezra, 193.

16 Read in isolation, Ezra 6:14 appears to show that author’s knowledge of the chronology of Persian kings. However, when read in light of 6:15, the text may suggest that it was in fact in the reign of Darius II (son of Artaxerxes I), “So the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of the prophet Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo. They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia; and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius” (Ezra 6:14–15). However, 6:14 is vague in what exact part of the building was finished. If we accept that the walls were part of the building (e.g., Eskenazi), then 6:15 may suggest that the temple building was completed in the reign of Darius I and the complete building (with the wall) was completed later in the reign of Artaxerxes I. This could be the reason why the author specifies a date, “third day of the month Adar,” and then attributes the completion of the “house” to Darius.

188 This .( אָתְיְרִק ) ”episode in Ezra 4 refers to every building endeavour with reference to a “city reveals a nuance within the representation of the events and may be an acknowledgement that the house of God was already built and now the city is in view. The temple was no longer in need of construction, unlike the city and its walls.

seems to assume that all building activities were ( ןִיַדאֵבּ ) ”The time indicator “then stopped during the time Artaxerxes to Darius I, but this is chronologically impossible.

Notwithstanding the fact that ancient texts often relegated chronology for theology,17 if we assume that the text knows the proper chronology, we can observe that Ezra 4:5–24 is a digression from the chronological story. In a previous chapter, Williamson’s observation of a repetitive resumption in 4:5 and 24 was noted.18 The phrase “the reign of King Darius of Persia” is repeated in these two verses and is only found with these two verses which work as an envelope for the section. The royal titular “King Darius of Persia” is unique to these two verses

The NRSV 19. ןִיַדאֵבּ also. Thus, 4:5 opens the digression and 4:24 closes the digression with

.as “at that time,” but this can be misleading since it may not indicate time ” ןִיַדאֵבּ “ translates

cannot imply direct narrative sequence for the subject is“ ןִיַדאֵבּ ,Instead, as Blenkinsopp states

refers back to ” ןִיַדאֵבּ “ the entirely different one of the building of the temple.”20 The particle

17 In the words of Japhet, “Ezra-Nehemiah differs from other historical books in the Bible in that it lacks a chronological skeleton, or a systematical chronological framework…” (Sara Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 254). It is probably not the case that Ezra-Nehemiah is written with a “timeless” attitude (Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 103).

18 Williamson, “Composition of Ezra I-VI,” 16–17.

19 Similarly, Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem, 115.

20 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 114.

189 Ezra 4:5 and not 4:23.21 In summary, the narrative shows that it has knowledge of the proper succession of Persian kings, yet it chooses not to tell the story in proper chronological order.

7.1.3. The Purposes of Non-Chronology If we follow Sternberg’s advice, a “dechronologized” narrative must be “(re)chronologized in interpretation.”22 The narrative convolutes a simple format: Cyrus decrees the building of the house of God, Darius continues Cyrus’ plan, which is then reversed by Artaxerxes. However, instead of presenting these events successively, the narrative swaps the events of Darius and

Artaxerxes. There are three effects, I will argue, which are the results of this reversal.

7.1.3.1. The Ambivalent “Success” of the Temple Building

By adding Artaxerxes into the story before Darius, the ultimate fate of the city after Darius’ reign is revealed prematurely. The story that is contained within Ezra 5–6 centres around the completion of the temple. At the end of Ezra 6, the residents of Judah celebrate as they witness the finished temple. However, the narrative has already indicated that after Darius’ rule,

Artaxerxes ascended into power and felt threatened by the construction of Jerusalem (4:17–

22). So, Artaxerxes stops all building processes within Jerusalem. Therefore, a sense of ambivalence toward the completion of the temple is created, and the communal celebration in

Ezra 6:16–22 is diminished. Eventually, the construction of the city will be stopped. In this, the rise of Artaxerxes is inserted earlier in the narrative to create a sense of ambivalence

21 Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 77.

22 Meir Sternberg, “Time and Space in Biblical (Hi)Story Telling: The Grand Chronology,” in The Book and Text: The Bible and Literary Theory, ed. Regina Schwartz (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 82.

190 towards the rule of Persia. Darius sought to assist the repatriated community, but the reader already knows that his successor Artaxerxes would not emulate him.

7.1.3.2. A Contradictory Succession

is used 18 ” םֵﬠְט “ One dominant theme throughout Ezra 4:8–6:18 is the decrees.23 The word times in the Aramaic segment with each use being significant throughout the course of events.

is traced throughout the Aramaic narrative, the Persian empire is ” םֵﬠְט “ When usage of ultimately pictured as a fractured government. Darius, like Artaxerxes, commands a decree to search the royal archives (6:1) yet in stark contrast to Artaxerxes, Darius’ search leads him to approve the building project through a decree (6:8). As Berman notes, Artaxerxes orders

אָל ) ”while Darius orders the construction “not to cease ,([4:21] לטב ) ”construction to “cease

.Darius’ own agenda is contrary to his successor .([6:8] אָלָטַּבְל

This is a fascinating representation within the narrative. In every self-representing inscription we have of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, they all claim to be in unique continuity with their forefathers. In the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus introduces himself as, “Son of

Cambyses…grandson of Cyrus…descendant of Teispes…the perfected seed of kingship”24

Briant writes that Cyrus had a deep desire to find continuity,

We have seen that Cyrus himself, beginning with the conquest of Babylon, wished to put the accent more on the continuities than on the discontinuities, at least in his propagandistic assertions. He was recognized in October 539 as ‘king of Babylon’ and ‘king of the countries’ (ŝar Babili/ ŝar mātāti), in one instance even bearing the title ‘king of the countries’ (ŝar mātāti). The title ‘king of Babylon’ passed very soon to his son Cambyses, who kept it for about a year (early 538 to 537). Cambyses thus bore the title ‘king of Babylon’ in association with his father, Cyrus (‘king of the countries’), as is seen in the

23 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 60.

24 Cyrus Cylinder, 20–21.

191 dual titulature found on some tablets: “Year 1 of Cambyses, king of Babylon, son of Cyrus, king of countries.25

The same can be said of Darius and Artaxerxes. Both kings attempt to portray themselves as successive kings with honourable ancestries. In the first few sentences of the first column in the Behistun inscription, it is written,

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of countries, son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian. Saith Darius the King, My father was Hystaspes; Hystaspes’ father was Arsames; Arsames’ father was Ariaramnes; Ariarmnes’ father was Teispes; Teispes’ father was Achaemenes. Saith Darius the King: For this reason we are called Achaemenians. From long ago we have been noble. From long ago our family had been kings.26

Darius later continues this through Cyrus and Cambyses, but he focuses on another branch of

Achaemenid royal dynasty from which Cyrus and Cambyses also apparently descended.

Nevertheless, referring to Cyrus and Cambyses’ rule and family, Darius claims, “The Kingdom which had been taken away from our family, that I put in its place; I reestablished it on its foundation.”27

In an extant inscription attributed to Artaxerxes, there is a clear desire for continuity with Darius. On a block of stone excavated in the Persepolis, we find the following words,

I am Artaxerxes king, the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far and wide, the son of Xerxes,

25 Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, 71.

26 Behistun Inscription, 1:1–8.

27 Behistun Inscription, 1:61.

192 the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid.28

Why Artaxerxes limits his lineage to Darius is unknown, but it is quite clear from the Persepolis inscription that Artaxerxes proudly announces his lineage back to Darius. However, from the inscriptions we have, the continuity that Artaxerxes seeks is in regard to the buildings in Persia:

“my father, king Xerxes, built this palace. After that I built [it].”29 Another inscription also complements this fact, “My father, King Xerxes, laid the foundations of this palace. With the protection of Ahuramazda, I, King Artaxerxes, have finished it.”30

The author of Ezra does not portray the Persian kings as likeminded rulers. While

Darius accepts Cyrus’ decrees—albeit through the prompting of the repatriated community

(Ezra 5:6–17)—Artaxerxes contradicts both Cyrus’ and Darius’ edicts by stopping the rebuilding of the temple. The Persian kings are thus represented as rulers who lack continuity.

This is achieved early and emphatically by inserting Artaxerxes’ reign before Darius.

7.1.3.3. Ending with a Curse upon Artaxerxes

Perhaps the most striking effect of the odd chronology is how the whole narrative segment ends in Ezra 6. Darius declares that anyone who reverses his decree would be cursed,

Furthermore, I decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill (Ezra 6:11).

28 A1Pa

29 A1Pa

30 A1Pb

193 These brutal consequences are, in effect, placed upon Artaxerxes. Having determined the fate of the city of Jerusalem and Artaxerxes who would stop the building, the narrative ends the story with a curse.

7.1.4. Non-Chronology in Ezra 8 Another example of odd chronology is found within Ezra 7–8. The narrative begins in the third

from ( הָלָﬠ ) person referring to the arrival of Ezra the scribe in Jerusalem, “this Ezra went up

.(to Jerusalem” (7:7 ( וּלֲﬠַיַּו ) Babylon” (7:6) and “some of the people of Israel…also went up

The narrative supplies the date of arrival (7:9). Ezra’s success is considered to be possible due to “the gracious hand of his God” (7:9) upon him. It is at this point where the narrative moves into the Artaxerxes rescript (7:12–25) and a retelling of the journey in the first person (7:25–

8:36) transpires. The third person has already established the successful arrival of Ezra, but the rest of the narrative, until the start of chapter 9, recaps this journey.

This non-chronological structure can be said to be a dramatic retelling of the specifics of what would otherwise be a potentially bland story.31 But composing a story in such a way has bearing upon the interpretation of the narrative. In fact, by attributing all success the narrative focuses upon the sovereignty of YHWH. The reader should observe the repetition of

“king” (7:1, 6, 7, 8) and the date (7:7, 8) when Ezra and the people arrived. Pakkala argues that these repetitions are not only unnecessary, but the reference to the year is also “disturbingly repeated.”32 This repetition, however, should be understood as points of emphasis; a key point

31 In the words of Becking, “Stories that straightforwardly reach their goal are appreciated less enthusiastically than stories that contain a complication” (Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 52).

32 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 27.

194 to be retained in the mind of the reader; the exiles had returned on the “seventh year of the king” (7:8).

Once the date of the return of the exiles and the message that their success was due to the “gracious hand of God” (7:9) is established, the narrative enters into the Artaxerxes rescript.

Becking considers that the addition of the rescript “gives an additional legal basis” for the return. 33 Indeed, the rescript (in the Aramaic) gives added force by its use of Imperial

Aramaic.34 However, more can be said. By establishing YHWH’s sovereignty in the third- person narrative, the rescript of Artaxerxes becomes a spoilt story; its intended outcome is deliberately revealed.

The first-person narration (Ezra 7:25–8:36) reveals the potential dangers of traveling to

Jerusalem. However, the reader knows that these potential dangers are no real threats since the third-person narration has already exposed Ezra’s successful arrival, “for the gracious hand of

Intensifying this point, the first-person .([7:8] ויָהלֱא־דַיְכּ הָבוֹטַּה ויָלָﬠ ) ”his God was upon him narration refers back to the third-person narration’s by mentioning that “the hand of our God

.([8:22] וּניֵהלֱא־דַי ויָשְׁקַבְמ־לָכּ־לַﬠ הָבוֹטְל ) ”is gracious to all who seek him

Exposing the ultimate outcome of the story creates a potent rhetoric; everything that is claimed by the king will be read with the preconceived notion that YHWH had his hand upon

Ezra and that the scribe will safely arrive in Jerusalem. Although this argument does not cancel out the possibility of dual causation, the main cause of success is given to YHWH not

Artaxerxes. Therefore, the king’s belief that his decree is the sole cause that sends Ezra to

Jerusalem is thus undercut (Ezra 7:14).

33 Becking, Ezra-Nehemiah, 100.

34 See Polak, “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire,” 591–96.

195

7.1.5. Summary If we accept the premise that the author shows a good level of awareness concerning the proper lineage of Persian kings, there is good reason to believe that the author shifts the rule of Darius and Artaxerxes around for ideological purposes. Firstly, the author demonstrates that the success of the temple completion in Ezra 6 is marred by the reality of Artaxerxes’ later reversal of the Darius’ support for Jerusalem. Secondly, the author presents a contradictory succession.

Cyrus and Darius are of the same mind, although Darius needed some reminding, but

Artaxerxes contradicts his predecessors. Finally, the narrative is constructed to end with Darius’ curse; a curse that is ultimately placed upon Artaxerxes. Overall, this is more of an indictment upon Artaxerxes than the rest of the kings mentioned in Ezra. Although the Persian kings lack continuity, Artaxerxes is definitively the odd one out, as he contradicts the edicts of both Cyrus and Darius.

7.2. THE PERSIAN KINGS AND THE LANGUAGE TRANSITIONS

It would be amiss to study Ezra 4–6 without discussing the language transition from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again. Like the non-chronological narrative of Ezra 4–6, the change in language has been a topic of interest within Ezra-Nehemiah studies. While questions surrounding the authenticity of the Aramaic segment are important,35 my main line of enquiry will concern the literary reason(s) behind the shift in language and how it affects the presentation of the kings of Persia.

35 For arguments concerning the authenticity of the documents see, Richard C. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive,” 641–47; Andrew E. Steinmann, “Letters of Kings about Votive Offerings, The God of Israel and the Aramaic Document in Ezra 4:8–6:18,” JHebS 23 (2008): 2–14. For their illegitimacy see, Sebastian Grätz, “Die Aramäisch Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6,” ZAW 118 (2006): 405–22.

196

7.2.1. Previous Suggestions 7.2.1.1. Rhetorical Tool

Arnold has argued that the use of bilingualism is a rhetorical tool which allows the author to shift from one perspective to another revealing an “external point of view” by a foreign administrator.36 The letters reveal the implied narrator’s ideology which is aligned with the governing authorities, so he fittingly narrated it in Aramaic.37 Berman has extended Arnold’s conclusions by suggesting that the Aramaic material is an opposing Samaritan voice which slowly acknowledges the efficacy of the returned group.38 Berman’s supporting evidence is as follows: (1) the peculiar anomaly in Ezra 5:4 where the narrative unexpectedly uses the first-

is evidence of an external ([ ןִיַדֱא אָמֵנְכּ אָנְרַמֲא םֹהְלּ ... ] ”…person (“And we also asked them this

Ezra 5:1; 6:14]) without the use of the] הָּלֱא לֵאָרְשִׂ י ) ”voice; (2) the phrase “God of Israel

and not “house ( תיֵב אָהָלֱא ) ”tetragrammaton; (3) the reference to the temple as “house of God

the (5) ;( אֵיָדוּהְי ) ”the reference to the community as “the Jews (4) ;( תיֵב וּניֵהלֱא ) ”of our God

.( רַפְס הֶשֹׁמ ) ”absence of “the Law” in 6:18 and instead having “the book of Moses

These points, however, are inconclusive. Point (1) is a difficult assertion to make. As was argued in the previous chapter, 5:4 can also be interpreted in the other direction; as an ideology in favour of the biblical author.39 Thus, making the proposal of an external voice is

36 Bill T. Arnold, “The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism in Ezra and Daniel,” JNSL 22 (1996): 1–16; Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria.” This line of argumentation is not so different to Daniel Snell’s earlier article which suggested that Aramaic is used to indicate a new viewpoint (Daniel Snell, “Why is There Aramaic in the Bible?,” JSOT 18 [1980]: 32–51).

37 Arnold, “The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible,” 7.

38 Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria.”

39 See, section 4.1.2.2.

197 tenuous. Point (5) was also discussed above. Simply said, “the book of Moses” is possibly used to make a contrast with the “books” of Persia.40 Points (3) and (4) are insufficient evidence because the book of Daniel also uses the same phrases. Daniel 3:8, also written in Aramaic,

and Dan 5:3, which is also in Aramaic, contains the phrase “house of ( אֵיָדוּהְי ) ”has “the Jews

So, unless we are prepared to say the Aramaic portions in Daniel are also .( תיֵב אָהָלֱא ) ”God opposed to the biblical writer, it would be difficult to suggest it for Ezra-Nehemiah. Point (2) also falls into the same problem as points (3) and (4). Nevertheless, this argument contains a stronger piece of evidence. Berman observes that the only instance where “God of Israel” is referred to without the tetragrammaton in the Aramaic documents from Elephantine is uttered by a non-Jew.41 But a problem with this argument is that the book of Daniel also lacks the tetragrammaton in its Aramaic sections.

8.2.1.2. Socio-Linguistic Perspectives

By approaching the phenomenon of bilingualism from a socio-linguistic perspective, the function of language in the context can be considered an example of diglossia. Diglossia refers to the use of two or more varieties of language for particular social purposes. Polak has observed that Achaemenid Judah contained three different language varieties: religious language for liturgical purposes, a common language for inter-group communication, and a

40 See, section 4.2.3.

41 Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria,” 317. Berman specifically notes doc. B21 line 2 from Bezalel Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross- Cultural Continuity and Change, DMOA 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 148.

198 vernacular for communicating with those outside.42 Hence, Spolsky has suggested that a better description of the linguistical phenomenon in Achaemenid Judah would be “triglossia.”43

Building on the existence of triglossia in the text of Ezra, some have observed that the alternating languages in Ezra can be understood to be analogous to modern-day code- switching.44 Code-switching suggests that shifting between language varieties is not merely rote but may be intentional.45 In the words of Hogue, “[l]iterary code-switching can be thus employed to demonstrate change in addressee or addressor, the marking of social boundaries, and relative ideological commitment of a speaker or narrator within a text.”46 Hogue offers an innovative analysis of the Aramaic within Ezra by first noting that there are not two linguistic idioms but three (Hebrew, Official Aramaic, and Western Aramaic).47 He then concludes,

The writer begins in Hebrew representing a false start to the return from exile and attempted rebuilding of the temple. He then transitions to a Judean vernacular—Western Aramaic or Ashdodite—as he explores the perspective of the diaspora observing the prevention of the return. He uses documents in

42 Frank H. Polak, “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 119;

43 Bernard Spolsky, The Language of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 30.

44 Timothy Hogue, “Return from Exile: Diglossia and Literary Code-Switching in Ezra 1–7,” ZAW 130 (2018): 55; Roger S. Nam, “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean: Code- Switching in Ezra-Nehemiah as an Identity Marker for Repatriate Judeans and Koreans,” in Landscapes of Korean and Korean American Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Ahn, International Voices in Biblical Studies (Atlanta: SBL, 2019), 119–32.

45 Roger S. Nam, “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean,” 122.

46 Hogue, “Return from Exile,” 58.

47 Hogue, “Return from Exile,” 54–68. This was demonstrated by Polak, who noticed that the narrative portions of the Ezra’s Aramaic are written with a subject-verb-object word order (i.e., Western Aramaic), as opposed to Darius’ letters which are written with a subject-object-verb word order (i.e., Official Aramaic) (Polak, “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire,” 595).

199 Official Aramaic to authentically relate the negotiation with the Persian court surrounding the rebuilding of the temple. As these documents are embedded, the audience sees the prestige language used both to challenge Ezra- Nehemiah’s underlying ideology and to support it in the strongest terms. Once the writer’s ideology has been vindicated, the narrative resumes in the diaspora language but with increasing ideological investment in the rebuilding of the temple and reestablishment of a Jewish homeland. Once ritual resumes there and the Jews have a new homeland within the empire, the narrator sheds the diaspora language and switches back to Hebrew as the symbolic idiom of the successful return.48

Hogue’s comment that the start of the Hebrew narrative represents a false start is debatable, however. An argument can be made that there is continuity between the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of Ezra.49 Nevertheless, Hogue presents a more warranted position than that of Arnold and Berman. Hogue speculates less when he identifies a conscious effort by the final editor to make an argument concerning the return from exile and building of the temple.

In his study of code-switching in Ezra, Nam suggests a different but not a mutually exclusive conclusion,

…code-switching reveals an awareness and resistance of the political power of the Persian Empire. That resistance demonstrates a linguistic ability which makes Ezra capable of embodying that power but also using it subversively to promote Judean goals of proper worship and sociopolitical identity in Jerusalem.50

48 Hogue, “Return from Exile,” 67.

49 Hogue argues that the use of Western Aramaic is a “literary reflection of a local Judean voice,” and this voice is rather disgruntled and unconvinced of the Hebrew narrative’s ideology (Hogue, “Return from Exile,” 63). Hogue’s claim that vernacular Aramaic is associated with Jews who disagree with the ideology of the writer is difficult to prove. The narrative portions of the Aramaic (which are exclusively vernacular) have, in fact, ideologies consistent with the earlier Hebrew portions. Moreover, the introduction to the Aramaic segment flows seamlessly from the Hebrew narrative as the author indicates that a change of language will take place (4:7). Williamson’s translation of 4:7 illustrates the exaggerated emphasis of the indication “and the document was written in the Aramaic script but translated. (Aramaic:)” (H. G. M. Williamson, “The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” JTS 59 for “to.” These points, therefore, suggest that ” לַﬠ “ The verse also contains an Aramaism .(50 :[2008] the Hebrew and Aramaic are written to have continuity rather than discontinuity.

50 Roger S. Nam, “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean,” 124.

200

Nam further argues that while the use of the imperial language by the enemies of Judah resulted in the stoppage of the building (Ezra 4:2–3), eventually the Judean community respond in

Aramaic in order to reverse the stoppage at the expense of the empire (5:14, 16).51 In this way, the use of Aramaic demonstrates the adaptive competence of the community.

7.2.2. Extending the Discussion 7.2.2.1. Multilingual Propaganda in Persian Administration

Multilingual inscriptions are not uncommon in the Persian period, especially in the Persian empire. Multilingual inscriptions can be found at Persepolis and its purposes are none other than to extend the reach of imperial administration and spread propaganda.52 The Naqš-e

Rustam inscription has Old Persian with a translation into Aramaic, and the Behistun inscription contains Old Persian, Neo-Babylonian (Akkadian), and Elamite cuneiform. Finn convincingly argues that the reason behind the trilingual inscriptions in Behistun alongside symbolic visualisations was “an innovative way to define the geographic and political boundaries of Darius’s empire.”53 Moreover, a stone jar with inscriptions of Darius I in four

51 Roger S. Nam, “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean,” 125–26.

52 Thomas Harrison, Writing Ancient Persia, Classical Essays (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011), 83–85; Amélie Kuhrt, “The Persian Kings and Their Subjects: A Unique Relationship (review of P. Frei and K. Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, Göttingen 1996),” OLZ 96 (2001): 168.

53 Jennifer Finn, “Gods, Kings, Men: Trilingual Inscriptions and Symbolic Visualizations in the Achaemenid Empire,” ArsOr 41 (2011): 219–75.

201 languages alongside various comparanda increases the likelihood of the practice of multilingual writing being not uncommon during Persian administration.54

Moreover, there is good evidence to suggest that the Achaemenid empire and administration found it essential to communicate with various ethnic groups. The later

Hellenistic writers depict the Achaemenid court using interpreters (Xen. Anab. 1.2.17; 8.12;

Plut. Them. 28.1; Hdr. 1.86; 3.38). Stolper and Tavernier have also demonstrated that many of the officials in the royal administration (who were non-Persians) knew an Iranian language in order to communicate with those of higher ranks.55 This use of foreign officials allowed the

Achaemenid administration to communicate directly with their foreign populations.56 In a world emerging into a nascent form of “globalisation,” the use of foreign languages was necessary within the Achaemenid empire. The Achaemenid empire also made Aramaic the lingua franca. 57 Aramaic, therefore, became the international language. The Judean community residing in Elephantine certainly used Aramaic as its main language of communication. The use of Aramaic in Ezra-Nehemiah demonstrates a contextual reality

54 See, Joan Goodnick Westenholz and Matthew W. Stolper, “A Stone Jar with Inscriptions of Darius I in Four Languages,” Arta 5 (2002): 1–13. It has been argued that these vessels were gifts handed out by the Achaemenid kings for loyal service (see, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Gifts in the Persian Empire,” in Le Tribut Dans l’Empire Perse, ed. Pierre Briant and Clarisse Herrenschmidt [Paris: Peeters, 1989], 134–35).

55 Matthew W. Stolper and Jan Tavernier, “From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, 1: An Old Persian Administrative Tablet from the Persepolis Fortification,” Arta 1 (2007): 19.

56 Zilberg, “From Dragomans to Babel: The Role of Interpreters in the Ancient Near East in the First Millennium B.C.E.,” 199.

57 Aramaic became a lingua franca and a second administrative language of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the eighth century B.C.E. Later when the Achaemenid empire emerged (539–332 B.C.E.) they transformed Aramaic language into the de facto diplomatic language of administration (see, Jan Dušek, “Aramaic in the Persian Period,” HBAI 2 [2013]: 243–64). Most of the Aramaic texts which date to the Persian period were discovered in Egypt. In the southern Levant, a few Aramaic manuscripts and inscriptions were also found. Most of these manuscripts and inscriptions from southern Levant are dated to the fourth century B.C.E. (see, Oded Lipschits and David Vanderhooft, The Yehud Stamp Impressions. A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011]).

202 within the Persian Period. Aramaic was the international language; a language which could reach more eyes and ears than the native tongue could.

Not all texts which were used by the Achaemenid empire were multilingual. We have evidence of royal propaganda translated only in Aramaic from Egypt, an Aramaic translation of the Behistun inscription dated to the end of the fifth century B.C.E. In the words of Dušek,

“It is not astonishing to find such a piece of royal propaganda in Egypt…because the dissemination of the text of the inscription from Bisitun was part of Darius’ plan to promulgate his royal ideology.”58 Indeed, the Old Persian text from the Behistun inscription explicitly states that translation of the inscription ought to be made then promulgated to the nations.59

7.2.2.2. The Author’s Use of the Aramaic

The trilingual nature of Ezra 4–6 and the use of the lingua franca Aramaic may suggest that the text is mimicking Achaemenid administrative texts. Just as the Persian empire spread its message through the use of multilingual and Aramaic texts, the text of Ezra-Nehemiah uses both Hebrew and Aramaic in order to spread its message. Not only does the use of Aramaic demonstrate the adaptive competency of the community, 60 but it also becomes means of disseminating its views. According to the author, Darius, the king of Persia, followed Cyrus by sanctioning the temple constructions. And if anyone were to reverse this edict, they would be cursed. This message is written in the lingua franca.

The mimicking of Achaemenid propaganda explains why the narrative is written in

Aramaic. Fried has suggested that the correspondence between Bishlam, Mithredath, and

58 Dušek, “Aramaic in the Persian Period,” 248.

59 Behistun Inscription 4:88–92.

60 Roger S. Nam, “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean,” 124.

203 Tabeel and Artaxerxes, and the community and Darius would have been in Aramaic. Thus, the use of Aramaic conveys authenticity.61 While this suggestion explains the use of Aramaic in the letters, it does not explain why the author chooses to write the narrative in Aramaic. The narrative which exists in Aramaic presents perhaps the most triumphal element of Ezra-

Nehemiah. The temple which was once destroyed now stands (Ezra 6:14–18). It makes most sense to have this triumphal element in Aramaic as it authenticates the events which unfold within Jerusalem to, literally, the whole world. Moreover, with Darius acknowledging Cyrus’ decree (6:1–5), this legitimises the building of the house of God since Cyrus’ time. At the same time, Darius’ curse upon anyone who reverses his decree ensures that this temple (6:12), as long as the Persian empire existed, will be rebuilt and will function for the worship of YHWH.

This content is unique to the Aramaic narrative, and it is only fitting for such a momentous issue to be written in the lingua franca.

7.2.3. Ending on a Hebrew Note The completion of the temple leads to the celebration of the Passover (Ezra 6:19–22). Yet the celebration of the Passover is written in Hebrew and not Aramaic. This sudden shift in language requires some explanation. Why is the celebration of the Passover not written in the lingua franca? And why is there another reiteration of YHWH’s role in the building of the temple?

Before answering these questions, we must acknowledge that Ezra 6:19–22 is an extension of the Aramaic narrative. Despite the language transition into Hebrew, Grabbe observes that the story from 7:1 onwards continues organically.62 Notwithstanding the introductory statement—

there is no explicit break—( הָﬠָבְּראְַבּ רָשָׂﬠ שֶׁדֹחַל ןוֹשׁאִרָה ) ”On the fourteenth day of first month“

61 Fried, Ezra, 209.

62 Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTR (London: Routledge, 1998), 25.

204 in the narrative. Moreover, the same priests and Levites in Ezra 6:18 continue their “service of

.(by purifying themselves and readying Passover (Ezra 6:19–20 ( תַדיִבֲﬠ אָהָלֱא ) ”God

7.2.3.1. Passover: Exit from Exile

The nature of Passover is that it was first and foremost a Jewish festival. The Passover festival is commanded in Exod 12:6, Lev 23:5–6, and Num 9:11. It would make less sense for this particular festival to be communicated to a community outside the Jewish one. Its significances and history is most appreciated by those who find their identity with the ritual.63 The narrative also suggests that the Passover was not only celebrated by the ethnic Jews but outsiders also joined,64 “It [the Passover lamb] was eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile, and those who separated themselves from the pollutions of the nations of the land to worship the LORD” (Ezra 6:21). The celebration of Passover as prescribed in Exod 12:19 is celebrated by even those who were not ethnically Jewish. This triumphal turn of events is narrated in the

Hebrew language for those who belonged to the community which resided in Jerusalem group.

63 Fleishman notes that despite the Passover festival’s significance in the Jewish tradition, it is rarely recounted in the HB (Joseph Fleishman, “An Echo of Optimism in Ezra 6:19–22,” HUCA 69 [1998]: 17). Passover outside of Ezra-Nehemiah is found in, Exod 12; Num 9:1–5; Josh 5:10; 2 Kgs 23:21; 2 Chr 30:15–17; 2 Chr 35:1–18.

64 There are disagreement over how Ezra 6:21 should be interpreted. The disagreement hinges Some argue for it to be a . לֹכְו לָדְּבִנַּה תאְַמֻטִּמ ץֶראָָה־ֵיוֹגּ on how we should interpret the waw in the phrase simple conjunction (e.g., Peter H. W. Lau, “Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?,” Bib 90 [2009]: 364; Christopher M. Jones, “Seeking the Divine, Divining the Seekers: The Status of Outsiders Who Seek Yahweh in Ezra 6:21,” JHebS 15 [2015]: 6), and others opt for an epexegetical interpretation (e.g., Matthew Thiessen, “The Function of a Conjunction: Inclusivist or Exclusivist Strategies in Ezra 6:19–21 and Nehemiah 10:29–30?,” JSOT 34 [2009]: 70–73). Jones notes that the overwhelming occurrences of the epexegetical waw-conjunction appear either in context of elevated poetic speech, legal texts, or architectural texts (Jones, “Seeking the Divine, Diving the Seekers,” 7–8; cf., David W. Baker, “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum,” VT 30 [1980]: 129–36; Patrick Wilton, “More Cases of Waw Explicativum,” VT 44 [1994]: 125–28). For this reason, the simple waw- conjunction has a stronger case.

205 Banziger also arrives at a similar conclusion. He argues that the Passover festival in

Ezra 6:19 deliberately creates a linguistic transition from exile back to the homeland. 65

־יֵנְב ) ”Banziger follows Ulfgard by focusing his attention upon the phrase “children of exile

who celebrate the Passover after their return and after the temple is rebuilt. This parallels ( הָלוֹגַּה the “children of Israel” in Josh 5 who celebrate Passover after crossing the Jordan and entering into the promise land.66 Like Josh 5, in Ezra 6:19, the community are said to have celebrated

Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month (cf., Josh 5:10). If the parallel is warranted, there may be a deliberate connection made between the slavery that once existed in Egypt and the slavery that existed in Persia. The sons of exile have now left the foreign lands of Persia and entered in the promise land; the temple is established and Passover is celebrated. These events are remarkably reminiscent of Josh 5 and the exodus from Egypt.

A legitimate case can be made against an interpretation that emphasises the slavery element of the exodus, however. There are no explicit indications within the text that the exiled community were once in slavery. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the parallel that exists between the Passover celebration in Josh 5 and Ezra 6 and what it entails. In the words of Bänziger, the

Passover is, “the festival that symbolises the exodus from slavery.” 67 Through the insertion of the Passover festival, the narrative demonstrates that living in Persia was living in exile, and that leaving the foreign lands of Persia was a kind of exodus.68 Some who took part in Passover

65 Bänziger, “Jauchzen und Weinen”, 156.

66 Håkan Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 122.

67 “dem Fest, das den Exodus aus der Sklaverei symbolisiert” (Bänziger, “Jauchzen und Weinen”, 156 [translation mine]).

68 Becking has argued against interpreting the return from exile as a second exodus (Bob Becking, “Does Ezra Present the Return from Exile as a Second Exodus?” BN 177 [2018], 65–73).

206 are called “the people of Israel who had returned from exile” and the king of Persia is equated to the “king of Assyria,” the kingdom which took them into exile. With the combined evidence found in the text, we can conclude that Persia is not presented in a positive light. In a subtle way, the narrative presents Persia like the Egyptians in Exodus and the Assyrians who took

Israel into exile.

7.2.3.2. Undiplomatic Remarks in the Hebrew

While Ezra 6:19–22 is a supplement to the Aramaic section, it contains its own style of remarks concerning the rule of Persia. In the Aramaic section, the text is rather diplomatic in its presentation and evaluation of events: “They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia” (6:14). Ezra 6:14 can be read as if YHWH and the kings of Persia worked together to complete the temple.

However, in the Hebrew segment, the narrative changes its tone, “With joy they celebrated the festival of unleavened bread seven days; for the Lord had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work on the house of God, the God of Israel.” No longer is it said that the temple was constructed by a combined effort between YHWH and the kings of Persia, but instead that YHWH turned the heart of the Persian king. Additionally, as was mentioned earlier, the king is described using the derogatory title

“king of Assyria.”69

Becking correctly argues against an overinterpretation of words and concepts that are either too to be construed as exodus terminology or incompatible parallels with the exodus ( הלע ,.common (e.g story (e.g., pharaoh versus emperor). But it is still difficult to suggest that there is a complete absence of exodus allusions. For instance, as I have argued above, the celebration of Passover undeniable links to the exodus event.

69 See, 7.2.2.

207 Ezra 6:19–22 draws the reader’s attention away from the work of the Persian kings. It lets the reader know that ultimately it was YHWH who turned the heart of the Persian king in order for his house to be completed. The Persian king, Darius, and even Cyrus and Artaxerxes helped in the building efforts because YHWH changed their minds. This demonstrates that the kings of Persia are not kings prima facie in favour of the returned community. It was only through YHWH intervention that these kings dealt with the community favourably.

7.3. SUMMARY

The observations above concerning both the non-chronological narrative and the language transitions show that narrative utilises these two methods in order to advance an ideology. Our focus, however, has been on the ideologies that impact how the Persian kings are represented.

The non-chronological narrative is used to create an ambivalent mood for the original readers.

Yes, the temple was constructed (Ezra 6), but the narrative reveals that the work on the city will soon be stopped by Artaxerxes. Also, through a non-chronological framework, the kings of Persia are presented as lacking continuity. In fact, Artaxerxes is so out of touch with his predecessors that he is cursed by Darius. Aramaic is used in order to mimic Persian propaganda.

It utilises the lingua franca in order to announce Darius’ sanction of the Jerusalem temple to the world. However, the transition to the Hebrew language in Ezra 6:19–22 leads to a number of negative portrayals of the king. Here the narrative parallels the repatriated community with those who fled Egypt in Exodus and equates the king of Persia with the king of Assyria who took them into exile.

208

Chapter 8

PARTIALLY FULFILLED OBJECTIVES

In Chapter 3 of this study, it was argued that the book of Ezra-Nehemiah has expectations which were to be fulfilled. These expectations, as we have established, can be summed up in three points: the return of the people; the construction of the temple; and the worship of YHWH in the temple. It was also noted that the kings of Persia had significant roles in the potential fulfilment of these expectations. The kings may act as aids to these expectations or as obstructions. In this chapter we will investigate the way in which the kings of Persia impact these expectations.

8.1. THE RETURN OF THE PEOPLE

Within Ezra-Nehemiah there are three reports of return. Ezra 1 contains the first return of a group of people,1 the second is Ezra’s return (Ezra 7),2 and the last is Nehemiah’s (Neh 2). The fact that there are three separate returns instead of one suggests that the expectation of return is a process rather than a single event. While the first return in Ezra 1 had a great number of

1 Ezra 2:2 lists Nehemiah, “They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah.” Fried has shown that the name “Nehemiah” was a common name. The name of a wall-builder in Neh 3:16 is Nehemiah and the name appears in various seventh-century sources (See, Fried, Ezra, 92–93). Fried, nevertheless, comes to the conclusion that the Nehemiah in Ezra 2:2 is the governor. Her suggestion is that “the biblical writer has included in the heading to this list every Persian-period Judean leader that he knew” (Fried, Ezra, 93). One wonders, however, why Ezra is not added in the list here and in Neh 7:7. It is more likely that the Nehemiah in Ezra 2:2 is not referring to the governor.

2 Neh 12:1 says, “These are the priests and the Levites who came up with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra.” The “Ezra” is most likely the Scribe Ezra who is properly introduced in Ezra 7. The list, however, is not a chronological note but rather, as Shepherd and Wright suggest, “the account offers a supplementary list of clerical personnel extending across multiple generations” (Shepherd and Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah, 97).

209 people return to Jerusalem at the command of Cyrus, Ezra 7 and Neh 2 show that some Jews were still residing in Persia or working for Persia (e.g., Nehemiah). Indeed, for Nehemiah the governor, his work for the king never ceases and is required to return to the king (Neh 13:6).

Williamson proposes that Nehemiah’s need to ask permission to return to Jerusalem “suggests that such a second visit was not originally contemplated.”3 There is a real sense of ambiguity for the leader of the repatriated community. The king’s decision not to release Nehemiah’s duties indefinitely suggest that a complete return has not yet taken place. At best, the expectation of return is only partly fulfilled, and that partial fulfilment in Neh 13:6 is due to and dependent on the good graces of King Artaxerxes.

8.2. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE

If we assume that the walls are a part of “the house of God,” there are three phases where the temple is completed: the laying down of the temple foundations (Ezra 3:10–13); the completion of the temple building (6:14–15); and the completion of the wall (Neh 6:16). We must add, however, the mere construction of a physical temple is not the significant point here. The temple was supposed to be the very dwelling place of YHWH and the God of Israel could certainly leave the physical building.4

The first phase, the completion of the temple foundations, evidently conveys ambivalent fulfilment. As it was argued earlier, the depressing reaction by the elders of the community shows an anticlimactic conclusion to the laying down of the temple foundations

(Ezra 3:12). The first temple is compared to the second temple through various means causing the reader to wonder whether the temple of YHWH could ever be fulfilled by a gentile king.

3 Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 387.

4 This is most evident in Ezek 11:22–23.

210 Additionally, Ezra 4:4–6 reveals that despite Cyrus’ edict to build the temple, “the people of the land” bribed Persian officials so that construction was made impossible until the reign of

Darius. Although Cyrus ruled and had commanded the construction of the temple, Persian bureaucracy were able to put obstacles in the way.

The second phase in Ezra 6:14–15 is more jubilant. The community finished the temple,

“by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of

Persia” (6:14). But more clarity is given in 6:22 as the LORD, “had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work on the house of God, the God of Israel.”

This epexegetical note puts a wedge between the king and the building. The king helped the building of the temple because God intervened and the designation “king of Assyria” only heightens the antithetical nature of Darius. This is different from Cyrus who is chosen by

YHWH to complete the temple, while Darius is effectively forced to work for YHWH (Ezra

1). This is a nuanced difference. Cyrus works with YHWH to build the temple while Darius works for YHWH despite his natural inclinations.

Nehemiah 6:15 narrates the completion of the wall, “so the wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty-two days.” The finalisation of the wall leads to positive consequences, “And when all our enemies heard of it, all the nations around us were afraid and fell greatly in their own esteem; for they perceived that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God” (6:16). The remaining narrative until Neh 13:4 sees a positive trend as the repatriated community make oaths to follow the laws of YHWH (9:38) and the wall is dedicated (12:27). Interestingly, however, the narrative of the completion of the wall lacks any mention of the Persian kings. Unlike Ezra 6:14, no praise is attributed to

Artaxerxes.

Additionally, we cannot overlook the Persian kings’ contributions towards the building of the temple. Cyrus is portrayed to be chosen by YHWH to build the temple and Darius

211 eventually honours and reaffirms Cyrus’ edict and the building is completed under his rule.

However, Artaxerxes is portrayed to be opposed to the building of the city. In Ezra 4:17–22,

Artaxerxes effectively stops the building of the city of Jerusalem. But as we know from the narrative, Artaxerxes is the king who authorises the building of the wall. At the same time,

Artaxerxes is not given any praise for his help for the wall. The narrative, therefore, is ambivalent at best about the last king, Artaxerxes.

Cyrus and Darius can be said to have been benefactors of the building of the temple.

Artaxerxes, on the other hand, cannot be said to be the same as his processors. He is the king that stops the building of the city (4:3) and although he permits the building of the wall, he is never given much credit for this. We may thus conclude that a chasm is created between the completion of the temple and Artaxerxes’ contribution. There is ambiguity as to how much the final Persian king in the narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah assisted in the completion of the temple’s construction.

There is one last factor we have yet to expand upon: that is, the return of YHWH to his temple. Becking has argued that the return of the temple vessels in Ezra 1:7 is evidence of

YHWH’s presence, albeit he says the vessels have “Symbolic Presence.”5 That is, the temple vessels were symbolic representations of the divine. There is truth to Becking’s statement. The temple vessels are more than just tools.6 What this supposes is an ambivalent return of YHWH to the temple. Bänziger makes this observation by noting the contrast between the first and

5 Bob Becking, “Temple Vessels Speaking for a Silent God: Notes on Divine Presence in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Reflections on the Silence of God: A Discussion with Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor, ed. Bob Becking, OtSt (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 26.

6 C.f., Jer 10:3–5.

212 filled the sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:10–11), but ָכּ דוֹב second temple.7 In the first temple, the divine there is nothing of the sort in Ezra-Nehemiah.8

8.3. THE WORSHIP OF YHWH

Earlier in chapter 3, the precise definition and parameters of “worship” were not given. Here it will be discussed. In Ezra-Nehemiah, worship in the temple includes a number of things, some more obvious than others. The first, and perhaps most obvious, are temple sacrifices. This point was already made earlier as Cyrus supplies “freewill offerings for the house of God in

Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:4). Darius also offers “bulls, rams, or sheep for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, or oil, as the priests at Jerusalem require—let that be given day to day without fail” (6:9). Darius, like Cyrus, offers various animals and goods for offering and sacrifice. Artaxerxes also supplies freewill offerings, but his method differs. Instead of directly giving animals and goods for the temple, Artaxerxes gives money and, “with this money, then, you shall with all diligence buy bulls, rams, and lambs, and their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem” (7:17).

What exactly we should make of Artaxerxes form of assistance (i.e., should we consider it to be lacklustre or similar to that of his predecessors) is difficult to tell. However, we can make

7 Bänziger, “Jauchzen und Weinen”, 261. Eskenazi also observes this, “… no cloud of God’s glory. Ezra-Nehemiah has no theophany anywhere. Bowing down in Neh 8:6 nevertheless acknowledges God’s presence, but without glory” (Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, 108–9).

8 Fried has argued that the author envisions a fulfilment of Ezekiel’s visions (Lisbeth S. Fried, “Who Wrote Ezra-Nehemiah—and Why Did They?,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008], 79–90). While Fried notices a number of parallels which may indeed show signs of fulfilment, the climactic scene of God’s glory returning to the temple in Ezek 43:2–5 is not depicted.

213 the straightforward claim that all three kings act in support of sacrifices and offerings being made in the house of God.

The worship of YHWH is also intertwined with the law of YHWH. Pakkala in his study of centres and peripheries in the Ezra story (Ezra 7–10; Neh 8) makes this case.9 He writes,

“Jerusalem without the Law (or the temple or other central institutions) could also be regarded as a peripheral location in early Judaism.”10 Both Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8 have a heavy emphasis on the law and the need to observe it, with Ezra 9:15, perhaps, the most explicit comment on what should and could happen to the community if disobedience continues.11 While Pakkala’s analysis is limited to five chapters of Ezra-Nehemiah, the same can be said of the rest of the book. The community’s desire early in the narrative to obey the law of YHWH is portrayed favourably: Ezra 3 notes the people’s desire to follow the law despite their fear of the neighbouring people; Ezra 6:18 notes that priests and Levites were organised properly for the service of God at Jerusalem; and Neh 13:4–31 maintains that a Jerusalem without proper observance of the law is lamentable.12 It is not only the “Ezra story” that puts the law of YHWH upon a pedestal but the whole of Ezra-Nehemiah.

The question for this study is whether the Persian kings work to have the law properly observed in Jerusalem. Quite fascinatingly, the narrative is silent about Cyrus’ and Darius’ impact upon the law and its promulgation in Jerusalem. They simply do not tend to the matter.

The repatriated community simply go about their business (c.f., Ezra 3:2; 6:18). This cannot

9 Juha Pakkala, “Centers and Peripheries in the Ezra Story,” in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, FAT 108 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 169– 188.

10 Pakkala, “Centers and Peripheries on the Ezra Story,” 173.

11 See, Paul Byun, “A Paradoxical Situation and God’s Righteousness in Ezra 9:15,” ZAW 131 (2019): 467–73.

12 See, Byun, “Diminishing the Effectiveness of the Wall in Nehemiah,” 1–11.

214 be said of Artaxerxes, however. Artaxerxes’ involvement in the promulgation of the law in

Jerusalem is portrayed as problematic on many levels. Therefore, on the subject of the law in

Jerusalem, Artaxerxes is the only king who inhibits the full capacity to conduct proper worship of God.

8.4. SUMMARY

This chapter has demonstrated that there exists a real sense of ambivalence when it comes to the fulfilment of expectations in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. Yet, it would be incorrect to suggest that nothing is fulfilled. Through the Persian kings the people return, the temple is rebuilt, and worship is conducted. However, it is also through some of the Persian kings that

Nehemiah remains a captive in Persia, the temple construction is obstructed, and correct worship through the law is hampered. In addition, it must be noted that Artaxerxes, who is the last king in narrative, is depicted to be the only king within the Achaemenid royal lineage to have impeded all three expectations within Ezra-Nehemiah.

215

Chapter 9

CONCLUSIONS

This thesis hypothesised that the imperial representation in Ezra-Nehemiah of the Persian kings is one of dissatisfaction. Here I will summarise the various findings of the study,

9.1. THE REPRESENTATIONS OF CYRUS

Early in the narrative, Ezra-Nehemiah depicts Cyrus as someone chosen by YHWH to build a house for him. Cyrus, in this representation, is not called God’s “servant” but such associations are clear in Ezra 1. But as the narrative continues, examples of dissatisfaction are observable.

The return of the exiles is not attributed to Cyrus’ edict and Persia’s help is left out in Ezra 2.

Ezra 3 and 4 perhaps demonstrate the greatest sense of dissatisfaction. The building of the temple is contrasted on a number of levels with the building of the first temple: the foreign tradesmen (masons and carpenters) and materials (cedar wood) were supplied by a foreign king, and the temple itself was authorised by a foreign king. This discontent concerning the building of the temple is compounded when the elders of the community weep when witnessing the temple foundations (Ezra 3:12). Subsequently, the narrative shows the consequences of evoking Cyrus’ name for exclusive building rights in 4:5 (c.f., 4:3): the adversaries bribe

Persian councillors to stop all building, and this consequence continues until the reign of Darius.

Overall, the imperial representation of Cyrus cannot be said to be positive and is closer to critical. It, however, cannot be said to be wholly critical. There are positives about Cyrus. For example, he was chosen by YHWH to release the exiles and help build the temple.

216 9.2. THE REPRESENTATIONS OF DARIUS I

The imperial representation of Darius in Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the repatriated community building the house of God without the king’s permission. This initiative to build starts with the prophets Haggai and Zechariah which causes suspicion amongst the Persian authorities. This in turn leads to a dialogue that contains a number of imperial representations of Darius. The community call Cyrus “the king of Babylon” right after noting that “because our ancestors had angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of King

Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon” (Ezra 5:12). The implication is that Cyrus, and by extension

Darius, are only rulers over the community because Israel in the past angered YHWH. The title

“king of Babylon” here is not used maliciously and is consistent with how Persian kings titled themselves. However, later Ezra 6:22 gives the title “the king of Assyria” to Darius. From the perspective of any Israelite, this title holds nothing but negative undertones. Additionally, in

Ezra 6:22, the narrative says that YHWH “had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work on the house of God.” Darius is not only negatively portrayed to be the king of Assyria, but he also needed a change of heart.

At the end of Ezra 6, a contrast is made between the community’s continuity with their past and the lack of continuity in the Persian lineage. While Darius makes a decree in order to search for Cyrus’ initial edict, the community need not look anywhere but the “book of Moses”

(6:18). Ezra-Nehemiah does not present Darius as having much continuity with Cyrus;1 Darius, in the text’s representation, is as a king who did not know his predecessor’s edicts. Cyrus’ edict was announced, “throughout all his kingdom” (Ezra 1:1), but for some reason or another Darius did not know it and needed to search the archives in Babylon and Ecbatana (6:1–2). Ezra-

1 Cambyses is ignored in Ezra-Nehemiah.

217 Nehemiah lacks any mention of Darius’ successes and only notes his failure to remember Cyrus’ edict.

9.3. THE REPRESENTATIONS OF ARTAXERXES I

Artaxerxes in Ezra-Nehemiah receives the most treatment. Ezra 4, 7–10, and the whole of

Nehemiah are written with the rule of Artaxerxes in view. Despite having the longest treatment,

Artaxerxes is represented most critically compared to Cyrus and Darius. Ezra 4 immediately presents Artaxerxes as a paranoid king. The king responds to some baseless charges made by the repatriates’ enemies which eventually leads to a halt of the city wall reconstruction.

The representation of Artaxerxes continues in Ezra 7 with a seemingly panegyrical discourse. King Artaxerxes, in a letter, commissions Ezra to legislate the law of God in

Jerusalem. Such a scene may seem to suggest that Artaxerxes is a king who is in favour of the repatriated people and their religion. However, a more careful study of the representation reveals that Artaxerxes had an ulterior motive, namely to prolongate his reign as king (Ezra

7:23). While a knowledge of Ezra’s law and the necessity of obeying it would contribute to a positive depiction of Artaxerxes, he shows no knowledge of the law nor of the need of obedience. To make matters worse, Artaxerxes attempts to amalgamate Persian law with Ezra’s law (7:26). For any Judean author, and any Judean reader, this is a problem for the complete establishment and promulgation of the law of God in Jerusalem.

Ezra 8 contains some noteworthy representations of Artaxerxes. Ezra, the scribe, denies his opportunity to receive protection from the king for his journey. Instead of asking the king for protection on the journey to Jerusalem, the scribe asks YHWH for protection. This certainly shows that the God of Israel and the king of Persia are not working in unison. In fact, Ezra’s words, “since we had told the king that the hand of our God is gracious to all who seek him…”

218 (Ezra 8:22) reveal that these two entities are at odds. YHWH’s guarantees are not known by the king, neither is there a mention of Artaxerxes seeking YHWH either.

In Ezra 8:35–36 we observed that the text utilises a brief third person detour with a number of loanwords in order to indicate that Ezra never legislated Persian law in Jerusalem.

This act of defiance is not seen to be problematic in the narrative. and the point is made in a subtle way.

Ezra-Nehemiah also presents the Persian rule as a result of Israel’s past disobedience.

The prayer in Ezra 9 confesses that “for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the land…as is now the case” (9:7). The prayer then proceeds to self-describe the current community as “slaves” (9:9) and even the harsh realities of exile are expressed. The Persian rule, along with the Persian king, is seen to be reprimands by God, thus consequences of sin. It is difficult to view these descriptions as positive in Ezra-Nehemiah.

They are better understood as critical representations of the Persian king.

The representation of Artaxerxes continues throughout Neh 1–13. As argued in Chapter

6, Neh 1 begins with no mention of the king of Persia and it is not until Neh 2 that we find out that Artaxerxes is the reigning king. Instead of revealing the identity of the king, the text calls the king, “this man” (Neh 1:11). No Persian-period text describes Artaxerxes or any Persian king in this way. Not even the critical Greek representations describe Artaxerxes in such a manner.

Nehemiah 2 builds on Nehemiah 1’s presentation of Artaxerxes a king who is not de facto in favour of helping the reconstruction of Jerusalem. A carefully constructed narrative is used to portray Nehemiah as a cunning and persuasive individual before a mighty king.

Nehemiah approaches Artaxerxes with a request at the right time (the month of Nisan), with the right people (the queen), with the right words (Zoroastrian terminology), and working with the right God (YHWH) (Neh 2:1–6). Eventually Nehemiah’s plea to go back and rebuild the

219 city walls is answered by Artaxerxes. The second half of Neh 2 displays Nehemiah’s intriguing response to the king. Artaxerxes permits the building of the city walls and Nehemiah is armed with the “king’s letters” (Neh 2:9), but after Nehemiah gives these letters to the governors of the province Beyond the River they are never reintroduced. Even when Nehemiah is confronted by Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, Nehemiah does not use the letters or mention the contents of the letters as a defence for building the wall. Instead, Nehemiah pleads his case by claiming that “the God of Heaven is the one who will give us success, and we his servants are going to start building… (Neh 2:20). The king’s possible assistance is ignored, and the focus is solely upon YHWH who will grant them success.

Nehemiah 5–6 also portray Artaxerxes in a critical light with a focus on the burden created by the king’s tax. The narrative does not disregard the internal problems which exist within the community (Neh 5:1–4) but it does insinuate that the king’s taxes are a problem which cannot be undone. Also, Nehemiah, in this segment of the narrative, is the governor of the land who acts like a king. There is no explicit statement that he is king or is wanting to become king, but examples of acting in a kingly fashion are evident: Nehemiah does not deny being a king; Nehemiah sets up a table setting fit for a king for matters of foreign diplomacy; and his prayers are reminiscent of recorded prayers by Achaemenid kings. Thus, the narrative presents a sense of dissatisfaction of the Persian rule as it considers a figure who acts benevolently for the community, while not being king.

In Neh 8–9 we find examples of critical representations of King Artaxerxes and the

Persian rule as a whole. Neh 8 appropriates Persian liturgy in order to highlight the law. This recapitulates the central interest of the narrative: the law of YHWH. Additionally, Neh 8 appropriates Sukkot. The descriptor “King Artaxerxes of Babylon” (Neh 13:6) represents

Persia as a nation akin to Egypt in the Exodus narrative. This representation of Artaxerxes is indeed more critical than panegyrical. Nehemiah 9 reflects a very critical understanding of the

220 Persian rule by suggesting that the community’s slavery under Persia is due to sin (Neh 9:6–

37). This cannot be construed to be a positive reflection on the Persian king. The king’s reign and power over the Jerusalem community was due to the sin of the people.

In Neh 11, we learn that Persia still had influence over the cult in Jerusalem; the king influenced certain aspects within the worship of YHWH, and he had oversight of various cultic matters (Neh 11:22–24). This imperial influence, however, is reversed in the latter parts of the narrative. Instead of the Persian king’s influence, the narrative makes an effort to show that the worship that followed was in fact influenced by David. Also, Neh 13 uses the title “the king of

Babylon” (Neh 13:6). While the title in certain contexts remains uncontroversial, in the context of the book, it is a critical presentation of King Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes is called the king of

Babylon in a context where Nehemiah is called back to the king thus resulting in corruption within the priesthood.

9.4. OTHER FINDINGS

A study of the non-chronological structure of Ezra 4–6 reveals that a heavy emphasis is placed upon Darius’ curse that “if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill” (Ezra

6:11). That “anyone” proves to be Darius’ successor Artaxerxes. Additionally, the non- chronological narrative focuses on the lack of continuity in the policies of the Persia kings.

Ezra 4–6 is not the only portion that contains a non-chronological structure of events. The story of Ezra 8 is also written non-chronologically. Here the narrative excludes the possibility of attributing Ezra’s successful journey and the legislation of the law in Jerusalem to Artaxerxes.

Both events are efficacious due to YHWH’s blessing, not the Persian king.

The switch to Aramaic in the narrative within the narrative of Ezra can understood as a mimicry of Persian propaganda. The narrative utilises the lingua franca in order to justify the

221 building of the temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the switch back to Hebrew in Ezra 6:19–22 contains an allusion to the Exodus narrative which suggests that the community’s exit from

Persia was much like their leaving from Egypt. This is a rather undiplomatic response towards kings who ultimately permitted the building of the temple.

Finally, the expectations set out from the onset of Ezra-Nehemiah are not met. This is not to say that the theological anticipations within Ezra-Nehemiah are entirely dependent upon the Persian kings, yet they have some stake in the matter. In chapter 11 it was shown that the expectations set out in Ezra 1 are only partly fulfilled, and its mere partial fulfilment can be attributed to the support, or lack thereof, of the Persian kings. The complete reversal of the exile is seen to be obstructed by Artaxerxes (Neh 13:6). The Persian kings’ contribution to the completion of the temple progressively diminishes in the narrative. While the kings of Persia provide for various sacrifices to YHWH, their contribution to the legislation of the law for proper worship in Ezra-Nehemiah is absent. Cyrus and Darius have little interaction with the law, but Artaxerxes not only makes an effort to synchronize Persian law and the Torah (e.g.,

Ezra 7:35–36), his influence on the cultic practices in Jerusalem are felt till the very end.

9.5. THE PERSIAN EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

So how does Ezra-Nehemiah present the Persian emperors? This study has shown that Ezra-

Nehemiah does not clothe the Persian kings with magnificent appellations. On the contrary,

Ezra-Nehemiah expresses a negative perception of the Persian kings. The degree of negativity, however, changes depending on the king. From Cyrus to Artaxerxes, the presentation of the kings is progressively more negative. Each king is successively worse and is thus robed with greater criticism. The text of Ezra-Nehemiah is neither panegyrical nor positive. Overall, the kings of Persia are portrayed in a critical light.

222 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Ahl, Frederick. “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome.” AJP 105 (1984): 174–208.

Albertz, R. Religionsgeschichte Israels in Alttestamentlicher Zeit. Vol. 2. Göttingen: Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, 1992.

Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Applegate, J. “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the Hebrew Bible: Inner-Biblical Reflections on the Prophet and His Prophecy.” Pages 91–110 in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception—Le Livre de Jérémie et Sa Réception. Edited by A. H. Curtis and T. Römer. BETL. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997.

Arnold, Bill T. “The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism in Ezra and Daniel.” JNSL 22 (1996): 1–16.

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Aster, Shawn Zelig. Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology. ANEM 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

Avriel, Mikhal, and Nissim Amzallag. “Psalm 122 as the Song Performed at the Ceremony of Dedication of the City Wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12, 27-43).” SJOT 30 (2016): 44–64.

Bach, R. “Esra 1: Der Verfasser, Seine ‘Quellen’ Und Sein Thema.” Pages 41–60 in Gottes Recht Als Lebensraum. Festschrift Für Hans Joachim Boecker. Edited by P. Mommer. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neurkirchener, 1993.

Baker, David W. “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum.” VT 30 (1980): 129–36.

Balcer, Jack Martin. “The Athenian Episkopos and the Achaemenid ‘King’s Eye.’” AJP 98 (1977): 252–63.

Baltzer, Klaus R. “Moses Servant of God and the Servants: Text and Tradition in the Prayer of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5–11).” Pages 121–30 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester. Edited by Birger A. Pearson, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Geroge W. E. Nickelsburg. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991.

Bänzinger, Thomas. “Jauchzen und Weinen”: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud. Zurich: TVZ, 2014.

223 Bar-Efrat, Shimeon. Narrative Art in the Bible. JSOTSup 70. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989.

Bartsch, Shadi. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. ICC 12. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913.

Becker, Uwe. “Die Perser im Esra- und Nehemiabuch.” ZAW 127 (2015): 607–27.

Becking, Bob. “Coping with Drought and Famine in Some Post-Exilic Texts.” Pages 229–56 in Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 461. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

———. “Covenant, Agreement, and Law: The Social Code Underlying the Book of Nehemiah.” Pages 70–92 in Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015. Edited by Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad. OtSt 70. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

———. “Does Ezra Present the Return from Exile as a Second Exodus?.” BN 177 (2018): 65–73.

———. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity. FAT 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

———. Ezra-Nehemiah. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2018.

———. “Temple Vessels Speaking for a Silent God: Notes on Divine Presence in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 13–28 in Reflections on the Silence of God: A Discussion with Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor. Edited by Bob Becking. OtSt 62. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

———. “The Return of the Deity: Iconic or Aniconic.” Pages 53–62 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman. Edited by Yairah Amit, Ehud Ben Zvi, Israel Finkelstein, and Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Berman, Joshua. “The Narratological Purpose of Aramaic Prose in Ezra 4:8–6:18.” AS 5 (2007): 165–91.

———. “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra IV 8-VI 18 Reconsidered.” VT 56 (2006): 331–26.

224 Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988.

———. Judaism: The First Phase. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

———. “Mission of Udjahorresnet.” JBL 106 (1987): 409–21.

———. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament. The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. 2nd ed. Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Blum, Erhard. Studien Zur Komposition Des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.

Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

———. “Flashforward: Future Glimpses in the Past of Ezra 1–6.” Pages 247–60 in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Boda, Mark J., and Paul L. Redditt, eds. Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

Bird, Michael. 1 Esdras: Introduction and Commentary on the Greet Text in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Bortz, Anna Maria. Identität Und Kontinuität: Form Und Funktion Der Rückkehrerliste Esr 2. BZAW 512. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018.

Botta, Alejandro. The Aramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach. LSTS 64. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Bowick, James. “Characters in Stone: Royal Ideology and Yehudite Identity in the Behistun Inscription and the Book of Haggai.” Pages 87–118 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Burnside, Jonathan. “‘What Shall We Do with the Sabbath-Gatherer?’ A Narrative Approach to a ‘Hard Case’ in Biblical Law (Numbers 15:32-36).” VT 60 (2010): 45–62.

Byun, Paul. “A Paradoxical Situation and God’s Righteousness in Ezra 9:15.” ZAW 131 (2019): 467–73.

225 ———.“Building an Altar Despite Animosity: A Literary Defense of the Concessive Reading of Ezra 3:3a,” CBQ 82 (2020): 38–47.

———. “Diminishing the Effectiveness of the Wall in Nehemiah: A Narratological Analysis of the Nehemiah Memoir and Third-Person Narration.” JHebS 18 (2018): 1–11.

Carstens, Pernille. “Why Does the God Have a Cup in His Hand?” SJOT 12 (1998): 214–32.

Carter, C. E. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1999.

Cataldo Jeremiah W. Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Province, LHBOTS 498. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Cazelles, H. “La Mission d’Esdras.” VT 4 (1954): 113–40.

Chapman, Stephen B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. FAT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Choksy, Jamsheed K. Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph Over Evil. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989.

Chrostowski, Waldemar. “An Examination of Conscience by God’s People as Exemplified in Neh. 9,6–37.” BZ 34 (1990): 253–61.

Clines, David J. A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Cohen, Margaret. “Leave Nehemiah Alone: Nehemiah’s ‘Tales’ and Fifth-Century BCE Historiography.” Pages 56–74 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

Cross, Frank M. “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” JBL 94 (1975): 4–18.

Dequeker, Luc. “Darius the Persian and the Reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4,24).” Pages 67–92 in In Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991. Edited by J. Quaegebeur. OLA 55. Leuven: Peeters, 1993.

———. “Nehemiah and the Restoration of the Temple after the Exile.” Pages 547–67 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997.

Dignas, Beate, and Engelbert Winter. Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity Neighbours and Rivals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

226

Dozeman, Thomas B. “Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah.” JBL 122 (2003): 449–66.

Duggan, Michael. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b-10:40). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.

Dušek, Jan. “Aramaic in the Persian Period.” HBAI 2 (2013): 243–64.

Edelman, Diana V. The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and The Rebuilding of Jerusalem. Sheffield: Equinox, 2005.

Eilers, Wilhelm. Iranische Beamtennamen in Der Keilschriftlichen Überlieferung. Abhandlungen Für Die Kunde Des Morgenlandes 25. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1940.

Ellenbogen, Maximillian. Foreign Words in the Old Testament. London: Lowe & Brydone, 1957.

Elman, Yaakov., Secunda, Shai. “Judaism.” Pages 423–35 in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, Edited by Michael Stausberg and Yuhan Sohrab- Dinshaw Vevina. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.

Eskenazi, Tamara C. “Imagining the Other in the Construction of Judahite Identity in Ezra- Nehemiah.” Pages 230–56 in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman. LHBOTS 591. London: T&T Clark, 2014.

———. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. SBLMS 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Fensham, Frank C. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Finkel, Irving. “The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian Perspective.” Pages 4–34 in The Cyrus Cylinder: The Hing of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon. Edited by Irving Finkel. New York, NY: I. B. Tauris, 2013.

Finkelstein, Israel. Hasmonean Realities behind Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. AIL. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018.

Finn, Jennifer. “Gods, Kings, Men: Trilingual Inscriptions and Symbolic Visualizations in the Achaemenid Empire.” ArsOr 41 (2011): 219–75.

Fishbane, Michael A. The Garments of Torah. Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Fleishman, Joseph. “An Echo of Optimism in Ezra 6:19–22.” HUCA 69 (1998): 15–29.

227 ———. “Nehemiah’s Request on Behalf of Jerusalem.” Pages 241–66 in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation. Edited by Isaac Kalimi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

the King of Assyria’ in Ezra 6:22.” JANES‘ ךלמ ושא ר On the Meaning of the Term“ .——— 26 (1998): 37–45.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975.

Foroutan, Kiyan. “References to Zoroastrian Beliefs and Principles or an Image of the Achaemenid Court in Nehemiah 2:1–10?” Pages 403–18 in Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire. Edited by Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers. ANEM 13. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.

Frei, Peter. “Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary.” Pages 5–40 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

———. “Zentralgewalt Und Lokalautonomie Im Achämenidenreich.” Pages 8–113 in Reichsidee Und Reichsorganisation Im Perserreich. Edited by Peter Frei and Klaus Koch. 2nd ed. OBO 55. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1996.

Fried, Lisbeth S. “Because of the Dread Upon Them.” Pages 457–70 in The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Curtis and St John Simpson. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

———. “Deus Ex Machina and Plot Construction in Ezra 1–6.” Pages 189–207 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

———. Ezra: A Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015.

———. “Ezra’s Use of Documents in the Context of Hellenistic Rules of Rhetoric.” Pages 11–26 in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah. Edited by Isaac Kalimi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

———. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. BJSUCSD 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

———. “The Torah of God as God.” Pages 283–300 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. Edited by Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

———. “The ʿam Hāʾāreṣ in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration.” Pages 123–45 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschitz and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

———. “Who Wrote Ezra-Nehemiah—and Why Did They?” Pages 75–97 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield

228 Phoenix Press, 2008.

———. “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes.” Pages 63–89 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

Frolov, Serge. “The Prophecy of Jeremiah in Esr 1,1.” ZAW 116 (2004): 595–601.

Fulton, Deirdre N. “Jeshua’s ’High Priestly Lineage? A Reassessment of Nehemiah 12.10- 11.” Pages 94–115 in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Lester L. Grabbe. LSTS 73. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Galling, K. Studien Zur Geschichte Israels Im Persischen Zeitalter. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1964.

Gilmour, Rachelle. Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel. VTSup 143. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Gordon, Cyrus H. “New Directions.” BASP 15 (1978): 59–66.

Goswell, Gregory. Ezra-Nehemiah. Grand Rapids: EP Books, 2013.

——— “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah.” TJ 31 (2010): 187–203.

———. “The Attitude to the Persians in Ezra-Nehemiah.” TJ 32 (2011): 191–203.

———. “The Absence of a Davidic Hope in Ezra-Nehemiah.” TJ 33 (2012): 19–31.

———. “The Fate and Future of Zerubbabel in the Prophecy of Haggai.” Bib 91 (2010): 77– 90.

———. “The Prince Forecast by Ezekiel and Its Relation to Other Old Testament Messianic Portraits.” BN 178 (2018): 53–73.

Grabbe, Lester L. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTR. London: Routledge, 1998.

———. “Penetrating the Legend: In Quest for the Historical Ezra.” Pages 97–110 in Open- Mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Marjo C. A. Korpel. LHBOTS 616. London: T&T Clark, 2015.

———. “What Was Ezra’s Mission.” Pages 286–99 in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Grätz, Sebastian. Das Edikt Des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung Zum Religionspolitischen Und Historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12-26. BZAW 337. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.

229 ———. “Die Aramäisch Chronik Des Esrabuches Und Die Rolle Der Älteseten in Esr 5–6.” ZAW 118 (2006): 405–22.

Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. van Grol, Harm W. M. “Exegesis of the Exile — Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6–9.” Pages 31–61 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. De Moor. OtSt 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

———. “Ezra 7,1-10: Een Literair-Stilistische Analyse.” Bijdragen 51 (1990): 21–37.

———. “Schuld und Scham: die Verwurzelung von Esra 9,6–7 in der Tradition.” EstBib 55 (1997): 29–52.

Grosheide, Hans H. Ezra-Nehemia 1: Ezra. COT. Kampen: Kok, 1963.

Gros Louis, K. R. R. “Some Methodological Considerations” Pages 11–13 in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Vol. 2), Edited by K. R. R. Gros Louis. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982.

Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul. JSOTSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980.

Gunneweg, A. H. J. Esra. KAT 19.1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1985.

Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Nehemia. KAT 19.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1987. de Hammer Gudme, Anna Katrine. Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim. BZAW 441. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.

Harrington, Hannah K. “The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah.” JHebS 13 (2013): 1–20.

———. Writing Ancient Persia. Classical Essays. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011.

Hasler, Laura C. Archival Historiography in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Heckl, Raik. Neuanfang Und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien Zu Den Hermeneutischen Strategien Im Esra-Nehemia-Buch. FAT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. “The Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah as a Testimony for the Competition Between the Temples in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim in the Early Years of the Seleucid Rule over Judah.” Pages 115–132 in The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans. Edited by Magnar Kartveit and Gary N. Knoppers. Studia Samaritana 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018.

Heger, Paul. The Three Biblical Altar Laws: Developments in the Sacrificial Cult in Practice and Theology: Political and Economic Background. BZAW 279. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.

230

Hieke, Thomas. Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament 9.2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelewerk, 2005.

Hinz, Walther. Altiranisches Sprachgut Der Nebenüberlieferungen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1975.

Hoglund, Kenneth G. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. SBLDS 125. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

Hogue, Timothy. “Return from Exile: Diglossia and Literary Code-Switching in Ezra 1–7.” ZAW 130 (2018): 54–68.

Hurowitz, V. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Jacobs, Bruno. “Grausame Hinrichtungen – Friedliche Bilder. Zum Verhältnis Der Politischen Realität Zu Den Darstellungsszenarien Der Achämenidischen Kunst.” Pages 121–53 in Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild Und Text Des Altertums. Edited by Martin Zimmermann. Münchner Studien Zur Alten Welt 5. München: Herbert Utz Verlag GmbH, 2009.

Janzen, David. Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution. LHBOTS 655. London: T&T Clark, 2017.

———. “Yahwistic Appropriation of Achaemenid Ideology and the Function of Nehemiah 9 in Ezra-Nehemiah.” JBL 136 (2017): 839–56.

Japhet, Sara. “‘History’ and ‘Literature’ on the Persian Period; The Restoration of the Temple.” Ah, Assyria. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph’al. ScrHier 33. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991.

———. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

———. “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 189–216 in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

———. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

———. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel — Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah.” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98.

Jones, Christopher M. Retrofitting Jerusalem: Conceptions of Space, Identity, and Power in Ezra-Nehemiah. PhD diss.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2014.

231 ———. “Seeking the Divine, Divining the Seekers: The Status of Outsiders Who Seek Yahweh in Ezra 6:21.” JHebS 15 (2015): 1–23. de Jong, Albert. “Traditions of the Magi.” Pages 85–99 in The Idea of Iran: Birth of the Persian Empire. Edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart. London: Tauris, 2005.

.TWOT, 934–35 ”. םֵשׁ “ .Kaiser, Walter C

Karrer, Christiane. Ringen Um Die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie Zu Den Theologisch- Politischen Vorstellungen Im Esra-Nehemia-Buch. BZAW 308. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.

Karrer-Grube, Christiane. “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 136–59 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

Kellerman, Ulrich. Nehemiah: Quellen, Überlieferung, Und Geschichte. BZAW 102. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1967.

Kidner, Derek. Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

Klein, Ralph W. 2 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

———. “Were Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah Contemporaries? A Response to Diana Edelman’s Proposed Late Date for the Second Temple.” JBL 127 (2008): 697–701.

Koch, Klaus. “Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood.” Pages 105–10 in “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

———. “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism.” JSS 19 (1974): 173–97.

Kosters, W. H. Die Wiederherstellung Israels in Der Persischen Periode. Heildelberg: Hornung, 1895.

Kugler, Gili. “Present Affliction Affects the Representation of the Past: An Alternative Dating of Levitical Prayer in Nehemiah 9.” VT 63 (2013): 605–26.

———. When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move. BZAW 515. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019.

Kuhrt, Amélie. “State Communications in the Persian Empire.” Pages 112–40 in Sate Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Edited by Karen Radner. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

232 ———. “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy.” JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97.

———. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources Form the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

———. “The Persian Kings and Their Subjects: A Unique Relationship (Review of P. Frei and K. Koch, Reichsidee Und Reichsorganisation Im Perserreich, Göttingen 1996).” OLZ 96 (2001): 167–73.

Laird, Donna. Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah. AIL 26. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.

Lau, Peter H. W. “Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?” Bib 90 (2009): 356– 73.

Lee, Kyong-Jin. The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period. CBET 64. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.

Lendering, Jonas. “Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions: XPh (‘Daiva Inscription’).” Livius (n.d.). https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/xph/.

———. “A1Pa,” 2018. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal- inscriptions/a1pa/.

Leuchter, Mark. “Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia.” Pages 173–95 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

———. “The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10-23.” JBL 130 (2011): 431–50.

Lincoln, Bruce. Religion, Empire, Torture: The Case of Achaemenian Persia, with a Postscript on Abu Ghraib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Lipschits, Oded, and David Vanderhooft. The Yehud Stamp Impressions. A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Liver, Jacob. “Regarding the Problem of the Order of the Kings of Persia in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 127–38 in Studies in the Bible and Judean Scrolls. Jerusalem, 1974.

Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd. King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013.

Lloyd, Alan B. “The Inscription of Udjahorresnet a Collaborator’s Testament.” JEA 68 (1982): 166–180.

López-Ruiz, Carolina. “The King and the Cupbearer: Feasting and Power in Eastern Mediterranean Myth.” Pages 133–51 in Patrimonio Cultural de La Vid y El Vino

233 (Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Almendralejo, Badajoz, Feb. 2011). Edited by Juan Blánquez and Sebastián Celestino Pérez. Madrid: Badajoz, 2013.

Lortie, Christopher R. “These Are the Days of the Prophets: A Literary Analysis of Ezra 1– 6.” TynBul 64 (2013): 161–69.

Lowenthal, David. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. Vol. 21A of AB. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Mallau, Hans H. “The Redaction of Ezra 4–6: A Plea for a Theology of Scribes.” PRSt 15 (1988): 70–75.

Matzal, Stefan. “Short Notes on the Structure of Ezra 4–6.” VT 50 (2000): 566–68.

———. “The Structure of Ezra 3.” VT 68 (2018): 1–8.

McConville, J. G. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The Daily Study Bible Series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1985.

———. “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy.” VT 36 (1986): 205–24.

Mitchell, Lynette. “Remembering Cyrus the Persian: Exploring Monarchy and Freedom in Classical Greece.” Pages 283–92 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Moffat, Donald P. “The Metaphor at Stake in Ezra 9:8.” VT 63 (2013): 290–98.

Morgan, Janett. Greek Perspectives on the Achaemenid Empire: Persia through the Looking Glass. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Studien Zu Dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift. Vol. 2 of Skrifter Utgitt Av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964.

———. Studien Zu Dem Buche Ezra-Nehemiah. Vol. III. Oslo: University of Oslo Press, 1964.

Nam, Roger S. “Half Speak Ashdodite and None Can Speak Judean: Code-Switching in Ezra-Nehemiah as an Identity Marker for Repatriate Judeans and Koreans.” Pages 119–32 in Landscapes of Korean and Korean American Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John Ahn. International Voices in Biblical Studies. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019.

in the Old Testament.” JSS 10 םע ץראה Nicholson, Ernest W. “The Meaning of the Expression (1965): 59–66.

234 Nihan, Christophe. “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” Pages 187–223 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

Noegel, Scott. “Janus Parallelism in Job and Its Literary Significance.” JBL 115 (1996): 313– 20.

Oeming, Manfred. “‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehmiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period.” Pages 571–88 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

———. “The Real History: The Theological Ideas behind Nehemiah’s Wall.” Pages 131–49 in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah. Edited by Isaac Kalimi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Osterfield, G. Thomas. Ezra and Nehemiah in the First Person. PhD diss.: Vanderbilt University, 2001.

Pakkala, Juha. “Centers and Peripheries in the Ezra Story.” Pages 169–88 in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. FAT 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

———. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8. BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.

Pearce, L. E. “Sepīru and LúA.BA: Scribes of the Late First Millenium.” Pages 356–68 in Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro- Mesopotamian Realm RAI 42. Edited by K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet. OLA 96. Leuven: Peeters, 1999.

Polak, Frank H. “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire.” Pages 589–628 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Polaski, Don. “Nehemiah: Subject of the Empire, Subject of Writing.” Pages 37–60 in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation. Edited by Isaac Kalimi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Porten, Bezalel. “Theme and Structure of Ezra 1–6: From Literature to History.” Transeu 23 (2002): 27–44.

———. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Vol. 22 of DMOA. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Quasthoff, Uta M. Erzählen in Gesprächen. Kommunikation Und Institution 1. Tübingen: Narr, 1980.

235 Rabinowitz, Yosef. The Book of Ezra. The Art Scroll Tanach Series. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publication, 1984. von Rad, Gerhard. Das Geschichtsbild Des Chronistischen Werkes. BWA(N)T 54. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930.

Redditt, Paul L. “The Dependence of Ezra-Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles.” Pages 216–40 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “Alliteration.” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics 1:87– 87.

———. “Janus Parallelism in Gen 49:26.” JBL 99 (1980): 291–93.

———. “No Stelae, No Queens: Two Issues Concerning the Kings of Israel and Judah.” Pages 95–107 in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCullough. AASOR 60–61. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007.

Ristau, Kenneth A. “The Achaemenid Persian Empire in the West and Persian-Period Yehud.” Pages 236–43 in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.

Römer, Thomas. “Pentateuque, Hexateuque et Historiographie Deutéronomiste: Le Problème Du Début et de La Fin Du Livre de Josué.” Transeu 16 (1998): 71–86.

Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (5th–6th Centuries BCE). LHBOTS 543. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Rudolph, W. Esra Und Nehemia. HAT 20. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949.

Rundgren, Frithiof. “Zur Bedeutung von ŠRŠW—Esra VII 26.” VT 7 (1957): 400–404.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. “Gifts in the Persian Empire.” Pages 129–46 in Le Tribut Dans l’Empire Perse. Edited by Pierre Briant and Clarisse Herrenschmidt. Paris: Peeters, 1989.

Sanders, Jack T. “When Sacred Canopies Collide: The Reception of the Torah of Moses in the Wisdom Literature of the Second-Temple Period.” JSJ 32 (2001): 121–36.

Schaeder, H. H. Esra Der Schreiber. BHT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930.

Schulte, Lucas L. My Shepherd, Though You Do Not Know Me: The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the Nehemiah Memoir. CEBT 78. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

236 Schulz, Verena. Deconstructing Imperial Representation: Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius on Nero and Domitian. Mnemosyne 427. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

Shepherd, David J., and Christopher J. H. Wright. Ezra and Nehemiah. THOTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

Silverman, Jason M. Persian Royal-Judean Elite Engagements in the Early Teispid and Achaemenid Empire: The King’s Acolytes. LHBOTS 390. London: T&T Clark, 2020.

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. “Zoroastrianism,” Pages 102–28 in The Cambridge History of Religions in the Ancient World. Edited by Michele Renee Salzman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Smelik, Klass A. D. “Nehemiah as a ‘Court Jew.’” Pages 61–72 in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation. Edited by Isaac Kalimi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Snaith, Norman. “The Date of Ezra’s Arrival in Jerusalem.” ZAW 63 (1951): 53–66.

Spolsky, Bernard. The Language of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Steiner, Richard C. “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6.” JBL 125 (2006): 641–47.

———. “Why Bishlam (Ezra 4:7) Cannot Rest ‘In Peace’: On the Aramaic and Hebrew Sound Changes That Conspired to Blot out the Remembrance of Bel-Shalam the Archivist.” JBL 126 (2007): 392–401.

Steinmann, Andrew E. Ezra and Nehemiah. ConC. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2010.

———. “A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles Under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–2).” JETS 51 (2008): 513–22.

———. “Letters of Kings about Votive Offerings, The God of Israel and the Aramaic Document in Ezra 4:8–6:18.” JHebS 23 (2008): 2–14.

Sternberg, Meir. “Telling the Time [I]: Chronology and Narrative Theory.” Poetics Today 11 (1990): 901–48.

———. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. ISBL. Bloomington: IN: Indiana University Press, 1985.

———. “Time and Space in Biblical (Hi)Story Telling: The Grand Chronology.” Pages 81– 145 in The Book and Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by Regina Schwartz. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Stolper, Matthew W., and Jan Tavernier. “From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, 1: An Old Persian Administrative Tablet from the Persepolis Fortification.” Arta 1

237 (2007): 1–28.

Talmon, S. “Esra-Nehemia: Historiographie Oder Theologie?” Pages 329–56 in Ernten, Was Man Sät: Festschrift Für Klaus Koch Zu Seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neurkirchener, 1991.

———. “Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 357–64 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Thambyrajah, Jonathan. Loanwords in Biblical Literature: Rhetorical Studies in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Exodus. PhD diss.: The University of Sydney, 2019.

———. “The Rhetoric of Memucan’s Speech: Genre and Characterisation in Esther 1.” ABR 67 (2019): 60–68.

Thames, Jr, John T. “A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ʿam Hāʾāreṣ the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 130 (2011): 109–25.

Thiessen, Matthew. “The Function of a Conjunction: Inclusivist or Exclusivist Strategies in Ezra 6:19–21 and Nehemiah 10:29–30?” JSOT 34 (2009): 63–79.

Throntveit, Mark A. Ezra-Nehemiah. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.

Torrey, C. C. Ezra Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910.

Torrey, Charles C. The Compositional and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah. BZAW 2. Gießen: Ricker, 1896.

Trevaskis, Leigh M. “The Purpose of Leviticus 24 within Its Literary Context.” VT 59 (2009): 295–312.

Ulrich, Dean R. “David in Ezra-Nehemiah.” WTJ 78 (2016): 49–64.

Ungnad, Arthur. “Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst.” Archiv für Orientforschung 19 (1959): 74-82.

Vallat François. “Les textes cuneiformes de la statue de Darius.” CDAFI 4 (1974): 157–166.

Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Cosmos, Temple, House: Building and Wisdom in Mesopotamia and Israel.” Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel. Edited by Richard J. Clifford. SymS 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004.

238 ———. “Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?” Pages 67–97 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan. LHBOTS 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2009.

Welch, Adam C. “The Source of Nehemiah IX.” ZAW 47 (1929): 130–37.

———. Post-Exilic Judaism. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1935.

Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena Zur Geschichte Israels. 5th ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899.

Westenholz, Joan Goodnick, and Matthew W. Stolper. “A Stone Jar with Inscriptions of Darius I in Four Languages.” Arta 5 (2002): 1–13.

Whitters, Mark. “The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8:1–8.” JBL 136 (2017): 63–84.

Wiesehöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia. New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996.

Williamson, H. G. M. “Composition of Ezra I-Vi.” JTS 34 (1983): 1–30.

———. Ezra-Nehemiah. WBC. Waco: Word Books, 1985.

———. “History.” Pages 25–38 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

———. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

———. “Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9.” Pages 282–93 in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. FAT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

———. “The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited.” JTS 59 (2008): 41–62.

Wilton, Patrick. “More Cases of Waw Explicativum.” VT 44 (1994): 125–28. van Wolde, Ellen. A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2-3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden. SSN 25. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989.

Wright, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers. BZAW 348. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.

——— “Seeking, Finding and Writing in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 277–304 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

Yoo, Philip Y. Ezra and the Second Wilderness. OTM. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

239 Zilberg, Peter. “From Dragomans to Babel: The Role of Interpreters in the Ancient Near East in the First Millennium B.C.E.” Pages 191–207 in Registers and Modes of Communication in the Ancient Near East: Getting the Message Across. Edited by Kyle H. Keimer and Gillan Davis. London: Routledge, 2017.

Zunz, L. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge Der Juden, Historisch Enwickelt. Ein Beitrag Zur Alterthumskunde Und Biblischen Kritik, Zur Literatur-Und Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832.

240

241