Innovation in Persian Period Judah: Royal and Temple Ideology in Comparative Perspective 9783161612367, 9783161622519, 3161612361

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Corinna Körting (Hamburg) · Konrad Schmid (Zürich) Mark S. Smith (Princeton) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

144

Innovation in Persian Period Judah Royal and Temple Ideology in its Ancient Near East Setting edited by

Jill Middlemas

Mohr Siebeck

JILL MIDDLEMAS, born 1971; 2004 DPhil Oxon; Associate Professor in Biblical Theology, Faculty of Theology, Copenhagen University. orcid.org/0000-0001-9972-4786

ISBN 978-3-16-161236-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-162251-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162251-9 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

In fond memory of Gary Neil Knoppers (1958–2018) – for his contribution to the full breadth and depth of Old Testament studies as well as in grateful remembrance of his support for and cooperation with colleagues and students near and far. His light dimmed far too soon, but his life and legacy will be a blessing for the future. O LORD, my God, I cried out to you and you healed me, O LORD, you brought me up from Sheol, you preserved my life from going down into the pit. (Ps. 30:3–4)

Table of Contents JILL MIDDLEMAS Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

I. Conceptions of the King and Kingship LOUIS C. JONKER Is the book of Chronicles Yehud’s equivalent of Bisitun? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 BERNARD GOSSE David and Moses in Post-exilic Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 W. DENNIS TUCKER, JR. Creation, Kingship, and the Reframing of the Monarchy in the Psalter: A Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 DEIRDRE N. FULTON “Seeking the God of his Father”: Examining King Josiah’s Early Reforms in 2 Chronicles 34 in Light of Persian Period Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

II. Conceptions of the Temple JASON M. SILVERMAN Imperial Chapels or Oratories of Resistance? Differential Integration of Temples in the Persian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 DANIEL BODI The Temple in Persian Times as a Viable Economic Entity: A Comparison of Jerusalem’s Temple and Uruk’s Eanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 SAMASONI MOLELI Cultic worship with a ':)1 according to 1 Kings 8:41–43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

VIII

Table of Contents

GARD GRANERØD What were the Elephantine Judaeans’ Conceptions of YHW? Aspects of Elephantine Judaean Temple Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Index of Biblical and Extra-Biblical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud JILL MIDDLEMAS Biblical scholars tend to regard the bulk of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament (hereafter OT) as the product of the Persian period which stretched from the overthrow of the Babylonian empire in 539 to the end of Achaemenid rule in ca. 330 BCE effectuated by Alexander the Great. The association of the OT, including the origination and redaction of inherited traditions, with Persian rule leaves a number of questions about whether, how, and to what extent Persian influence was exerted on Yehud, the former southern kingdom of Judah, and the Jerusalem elites responsible for its written records. The present volume arose from a series of discussions that took place as part of the Persian period seminar at the Society of Biblical Literature meetings to address exactly these questions by attending to thought about the king and the temple in comparative perspective. The two themes of king and temple intersect and diverge as points of interest partly because of early initiatives by the Persian kings at empire building and maintenance, but also because of the historical record of Yehud during the entire Achaemenid period. By way of introduction, this chapter presents a brief overview of Persian imperial strategies and governance that had repercussions for the province of Yehud, a brief summary of the situation in the former kingdom of Judah in the Second Temple period, and an introduction to the essays of the volume set within consideration of the dual topoi of the king and temple.

1. Persian Rule and the Persian Period The advent of Persian rule over the former Babylonian Empire through the military campaigns of Cyrus the Great (550–522 BCE) and the restructure of the empire under Darius I (522–486 BCE) ushered in a new era for the ancient Near East (ANE).1 In the early Persian period, the two rulers of the Achaemenid line, Cyrus (550–530) and his son Cambyses (530–522), concentrated on con1 Histories of the Persian empire include P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P. T. Daniels; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002); E. S. Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE (trans. S. S. Schatzmann; BE 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2011); M. W. Waters, Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire,

2

Jill Middlemas

solidating and expanding the empire. Generally speaking, they left the administrative apparatus and governing units in place that they had inherited from the Babylonians before them.2 Cyrus and his son Cambyses put in place a series of mechanisms to foster control of a vast empire including fortification, tribute, temple construction, and propaganda. According to archaeological evidence, for example, fortification towers were constructed and rebuilt along the western periphery perhaps to secure the area against Egyptian interference in the latter part of the sixth century BCE.3 At the same time, Cyrus implemented strategies to promote the steady flow of tribute to the heartland and, perhaps more importantly given his strategic aims, to secure food and supplies for the sustenance of the imperial army. Increased settlement in the region of Diyala in this period suggests the movement of populations around the empire to further imperial and local goals of establishing long-term economic and agricultural development.4 Of more importance for the present volume, the first two Persian kings promoted temple restoration and building as a means to foster support and stability in volatile regions – Cyrus in Babylon and Cambyses in Egypt. A view to comparative material shows that Persian policy allowed, supported, and even sponsored the regeneration of local communities and their important cultic centres. The most lauded piece of evidence cited to expand on Persian policies after the submission of Babylonia to the rule of Cyrus is the Cyrus Cyliner (COS 2:314–16; ANET 315–16). The Cyrus Cylinder is a cuneiform inscription related to the restoration of temple property and people on a ten-inch (roughly 25 cm) clay barrel currently housed in the British Museum. It is consistent with other statements in ancient times from kings who conquered territory and sought to quell rebellion by vilifying the defeated ruler through claims of continuity with local and national traditions and with the support of the local god.5 550–330 BCE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Cf. A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2010). 2 M. Dandamaev and V. G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 97. J. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 68–70, contains a brief overview of the transition to Persian rule and a number of additional references. 3 M. Mallowan, “Cyrus the Great (558–529 BC),” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 392–419, here 408–9; E. Stern, “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period,” The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1, Introduction, The Persian Period (eds. W. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 70–87, here 86. 4 G. C. Cameron, “Cyrus the ‘Father’ and Babylonia,” in Acta Iranica. Vol. 1, Premiere Serie: Commemoration Cyrus (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 45–48; K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 3–5, 57–59; P. R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 79–81; O. Lipschits, “The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule,” TA 26 (1999): 182–85. 5 The propagandistic purposes of the Cyrus Cylinder have long been recognized, but see A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, Vol. 2 (London: Routledge, 1995), 601–3.

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

3

… I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon … to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy. (ANET 315–16)

The sentiments expressed on the Cyrus Cylinder have long been used to suggest that Cyrus launched an empirewide campaign to return divine statues to their shrines of origin, restore devastated and ruined temples, and repatriate peoples forcibly deported by the Babylonians to their native homelands. In recent years, how integral Persian imperial policies of appeasement have been in the formation of the religio-political context of Yehud has fallen under increased scrutiny, with particular questions being raised about whether Cyrus was concerned with the return of the cultic images of deities and peoples outside of Babylonia.6 As Rainer Albertz notes, upon closer scrutiny the communities listed on the Cyrus Cylinder include devastated or neglected areas in the border region between Babylonia and Persia. As such, they represent a more diverse area than solely within the Babylonian heartland.7 Notably, Cyrus sponsored temple reconstruction projects in Ur according to four extant building bricks,8 which is in keeping with the ideology expressed on the Cyrus Cylinder.9 The evidence of Cyrus’ attitude towards the restoration of sanctuaries, the return of seized temple property, and the resettlement of deported peoples who identified with their native homelands suggests ideological purposes – that he “kept to a conservative policy of restoring local cults so as to reinforce the local identity of the population and increase their loyalty to the Persian crown.”10 In the early period of Persian rule, the stability and cohesion of the empire depended on the good will of local communities and local power structures. Through comparison with the inscription of Udjahorresnet and the Elephantine papyri, for example, a clearer picture of Persian initiatives to foster stability and communal renewal emerges through attention to matters related to local

 6

A. Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97. R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (trans. D. Green; SBL 3; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 112–16.  8 Three of the building bricks explicitly mention the military leader Cyrus as the sanctuary’s benefactor. A badly damaged fourth brick no longer contains the name of the lauded royal benefactor, but the depiction of the king who returned the gods to their shrines that accompanies the inscription is thought to represent Cyrus.  9 A. L. Oppenheim, “The Babylonian Evidence of Achaemenian Rule in Mesopotamia,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2, The Median and Achaemenian Periods (ed. I. Gershevitch; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 529–97. 10 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 116.  7

4

Jill Middlemas

communities and their temple cults.11 The statue of Udjahorresnet contains a hieroglyphic inscription that is an important source of information for the Persian kings Cambyses and Darius I. The text portrays Cambyses and his successor Darius fulfilling the functions of the Egyptian pharaohs. As such, they act in accordance with local customs and pay obeisance to the local gods. The inscription suggests that Cambyses sought to quell rebellion in Egypt by working with local leaders and communities. In this way, interpreters align his approach with that of his father, Cyrus, who similarly implemented a strategy of appeasement. Of the evidence from the statue of Udjahorresnet, Amelie Kuhrt writes: Udjahorresnet shows that Cambyses’ policy in Egypt closely follows that of Cyrus in Babylonia: forging links with local elites, installing them in honoured (though not politically powerful) positions, exploiting their familiarity with local conditions in order to make acceptance of his rule as palatable as possible and moulding himself to fit the role an Egyptian king was traditionally expected to fill  – honouring the gods, authorising continued offerings, maintaining their sanctuaries in purity, adopting ceremonial Egyptian titles and names.12

The actions of Cambyses in Egypt mirrored those of his father Cyrus in Babylonia. Both men worked within regional administrative and religious structures to promote Persian rule. Their examples of respect for local authority are continued by Darius who was not of the Achaemenid line, but, nevertheless, ascended to the throne after the untimely death of Cambyses under mysterious circumstances. There are traces of a policy of appeasement already in the time of the NeoBabylonians. Although the Babylonians generally left capitals and major cities devastated and in ruins with little or no signs of reconstruction, they appeared to have made an exception for the temple in Ashur, which was reconstructed with the assistance of imperial sponsorship.13 The return of former inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah in the early period of the rule of Darius as part of a greater imperial policy to encourage local communities to remain loyal to the Persian government, is in line with ANE practice as evidenced in the written 11 L. L. Grabbe, Judaism From Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM, 1994), 97; E. Bresiani, “The Persian Occupation of Egypt,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2, The Media and Achaemenian Periods (ed. I. Gershevitch; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 502–28, here 504; J. M. S. Delgado, “Cambyses in Sais: Political and Religious Context in Achaemenid Egypt,” Chronique d’Égypt 79 (2020): 31–52. On Udjahorresnet, see A. B. Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: A Collaborator’s Testament,” JEA 66 (1986): 166–80; J. Blenkinsopp, “The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah,” JBL 106 (1987): 409–21. On the evidence of the Elephantine papyri, see G. Granerød, Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period: Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judeaen Community in Elephantine (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016) and his contribution to this volume. Cf. R. G. Kratz, “The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (eds. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 247–64. 12 Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 663. 13 Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah, 66–67.

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

5

record. Consistent with the biblical hints of a return taking place at the time of Zerubbabel is information gleaned from a family archive recovered from Neirab, which lies 4 km south of Aleppo, that records the repatriation of the Nuskugabbe family to the region of Syria from Mesopotamia during the early years of Darius (ca. 522/21 BCE).14 Because the advent of his reign was met with a series of revolts in Babylonia and across the empire, Darius I instituted a series of policies to encourage loyalty in local communities. Darius’ initiatives to foster the stability and longevity of the empire played a not insignificant role in the resurgence of Yehud after the disastrous fall of Jerusalem. To his reign is attributed state interest in the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem as well as the first true wave of returnees from Babylon.15 When seen in this way, the return of the Nusku-gabbe family from exile in Babylonia to their homeland in Syria during the early years of the reign of Darius contributed to the strategic placement of loyal subjects in the wider empire, especially at its western periphery. The efforts of Zerubbabel and Joshua (Heb. Jeshua) to encourage the repatriation of the exiles who had been deported to Babylon as well as the limited rebuilding of the temple also seem to function similarly. While Cyrus and Cambyses sought to stabilize and secure the empire from the threat of revolt especially from the two main powers in the region of the ANE, Babylon and Egypt, Darius (522–486 BCE) set about to implement strategies to promote the long-term maintenance of the empire through fiscal and administrative reforms. His ascension to the throne coincided with a backlash throughout the empire in Elam, Babylonia, Armenia, and Egypt among the more serious of the revolts that took place. By the end of 521 BCE, Darius had resumed control over all of the former empire of Cambyses, except for Egypt, to which he would turn his attention in 519. To dissuade future revolt, Darius implemented a series of creative strategies to maintain and sustain the unity of the empire. He reorganized the kingdom to facilitate more centralized control over the conquered territories and to create security in unstable areas. During the first two years of his reign, he put into place six imperial strategies to secure his rule and the empire. These include a sophisticated propaganda campaign that linked his lineage to those he claimed as his forbearers, the Achaemenids Cyrus and Cambyses, as well as to the support and blessing of the Persian gods. Politically, he oversaw an administrative restructuring in which the lands under 14 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 125, cites the important study by S. Timm, “Die Bedeutung der spätbabylonischen Texte aus Nērab für die Rückkehr der Judäer aus dem Exil,” in Meilenstein: Festgabe für Herbert Donner (eds. M. Weippert and S. Timm; Ägypten und Altes Testament 30; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), 276–88. See G. Tolini, “From Syria to Babylon and Back: The Neirab Archive,” in Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context (eds. J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers; BZAW 478; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 58–93. 15 Ibid., 123–27.

6

Jill Middlemas

Persian control were organized into 20 administrative units called satraps with a fixed yearly tribute for each. He also brought the military branch directly under the authority and control of the king. Further, he appointed and promoted loyal noble elites to positions of authority throughout the empire. In addition, he provided resources and ideological support for building projects, including the construction of temples and other holy sites, and even sponsored initiatives to codify local laws. Whereas Cyrus and Cambyses had been concerned with empire building, Darius focused his attention on risk management and the creation of centralized policies to foster long-term maintenance. The Bisitun (Behistun) Inscription, a monumental display etched onto the rockface of a cliff located on an important trade route leading to the Persian capital Ecbatana, dates from the early years of Darius’ reign. The inscription features the subjugation of numerous revolts against his reign depicted through his physical vanquishment of enemies and made possible through the support and authority of the Persian god Ahura Mazda. The inscription opens by clarifying Darius’ destiny to rule the Persian empire, contains a highly ideological account of the defeat of a ‘pretender’ to the throne,16 presents himself as the liberator of the people, and lauds his efforts to restore sanctuaries and repatriate exiled peoples to their native homelands. Saith Darius the King: The kingdom which had been taken away from our family that I put in its right place; I reset it on its foundation. As before, so I made the sanctuary which Gaumata the Magian destroyed, I restored to the people the pastures and the herds … which Gaumata the Magian took away from them. (Behistun Inscription Col. 14 1.61–71)17

Written copies of the inscription were distributed throughout the many provinces of the empire in local languages. The inscription has been found on a stele set up in Babylon and a copy in Aramaic exists among the records of a Jewish military colony that existed in Egypt until the middle of the fifth century BCE called the Elephantine Papyri. Notably, the name of Darius is found on more Egyptian monuments than all of the other Persian kings put together, which signals once again that propaganda was a major initiative during his reign intended to contribute to the stabilization of the empire and to support his legitimacy as imperial ruler. 16 There are indications that the enemy vanquished and presented as a usurper by Darius was the other legitimate son of Cyrus who ruled for a number of years in Persian, while his brother Cambyses was in Egypt. For example, the reign of Smerdis known as Gaumata in the inscription marked a smooth transition in Persian governance and society. Moreover, numerous Mesopotamian business and legal documents are dated to his reign and suggest transition to his rule was a natural occurrence. See the arguments for and against presented in M. A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 83–91; Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 664–67. 17 R. B. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1953).

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

7

In the interest of space, we have focused on the three kings who implemented Achaemenid rule over the ancient world from the end of the sixth and well into the fifth centuries. They established the important parameters of the ideology of the monarch and the temple that reverberated throughout Persian rule. In the context of the consideration of Yehud in the Persian period, perhaps one of the significant points of commonality among the three rulers, Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, is the focus on the restoration of local communities as a strategy of empire. The Persian system depended on co-operation with local ruling classes, which in turn allowed for a degree of self-governance as long as the financial, administrative, and political interests of the Persians were not abrogated. Notably, the satrap could strip local rulers of their governing positions if Persian control and interests in the area were deemed to be under threat.18 Within this system, the former kingdom of Judah became a distinct administrative unit, one of the smallest in the Land Beyond the River, with its own provincial government and administration, and it is to the emerging province of Yehud that we now turn.19 1.1 Judah in Persian Times – The Province of Yehud The former kingdom of Judah was subsumed within the Persian empire as the province of Yehud, which formed part of a larger administrative unit referred to as Across the River (Aramaic abar nahara or Babylonian ebir nari). It was later joined to Samaria by the time of Nehemiah in the fifth century BCE. Because Cyrus and Cambyses were more concerned with the maintenance and expansion of the empire, it appears that they primarily adopted the governing policies they inherited from the Babylonians. Under this system, the province of Yehud experienced no significant organizational changes from that known under Babylonian rule, which meant a relative degree of societal independence and self-governance. After Babylon fell to the Persians, the imperial rulers of the former kingdom of Judah changed, but everyday life effectively remained the same for the majority of those within and outside the homeland. Ideologically, though, significant changes were made in terms of the understanding of the state and of its chief national deity, Yahweh.20 The temple and royal palace had been destroyed, the king and members of the royal family had been deported to the royal court in Babylon, and the members of the temple priesthood who had not been killed or died in the downfall were deported to the Babylonian heartland along with members of the ruling classes and their families, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 18

Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 697–98. Blenkinsopp, “Temple,” 37; Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration, 26. 20 P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden, Brill, 2001), has notably drawn attention to commonality between the ideologies of the biblical literature of the First Temple period and the early Second Temple period. 19

8

Jill Middlemas

military personnel, and other skilled laborers. The society, governance, and religion of Yehud were very different from that which had existed before the fall of Jerusalem and Judah to the Babylonians. In the pre-fall period, the kingdom of Judah was a monarchy and the king was the head of the state and the cult. Although there was a high priest of the temple, the highest authority in the land was the king. In the post-fall, provincial period, the high priest of the temple became the religious leader of the province who gradually exerted increasing influence in civic and political matters. Notably, the former kingdom of Judah would never have a king again except for a brief period under the Maccabees in the second to first centuries BCE (165–63 BCE). Communal life for the Judahites who had remained in the land had shifted north to the territory of Benjamin with an established provisional capital in Mizpah and possibly also an operative temple at the traditional and ancient sacred cultic site of Bethel or elsewhere.21 Biblical literature dated to the Persian period, such as Zechariah 1–8 and possibly Isaiah 56–66, sought to bolster the importance of Jerusalem as the political, religious, and social centre of the province.22 After the rise of Cyrus who authorized (some) native peoples to return and reoccupy their homelands, one of the many challenges faced by Yehud was to regenerate society for the former Judahites, including those who had remained in the land, the exiles deported to Babylonia, and other refugees who had returned after sojourning in neighboring nation-states and Egypt.23 21 E. g. O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005); J. Middlemas, Troubles and idem, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). See the discussion and references in J. Blenkinsopp, “The Age of the Exile,” in The Biblical World, Vol. 1 (ed. J. Barton; London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 416–39; J. Middlemas, “Exile, Migration, and Diaspora After the Fall of Jerusalem” in The Biblical World, New Edition (ed. K. J. Dell; London and New York: Routledge, 2021), 519–37. 22 E. g. P. Marinkovic, “Zechariah 1–8 and the Second Temple,” in Second Temple Studies, Vol. 2, Temple and Community in the Persian Period (eds. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup. 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 88–103; Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah, 133–44; J. Middlemas, “Going Beyond the Myth of the Empty Land: A Reassessment of the Early Persian Period,” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd (eds. G. N. Knoppers and L. L. Grabbe with D. Fulton; London: T & T Clark, 2019), 174–94; K. A. Ristau, “Rebuilding Jerusalem: Zechariah’s Vision within Visions,” in Knoppers and Grabbe, Exile and Restoration Revisited, 195–213. Cf. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah, 136–40, on arguments for the ideological purpose of Isa. 57:3–13 to discredit religious worship outside of Jerusalem and possibly at the otherwise legitimate location of Bethel. 23 The timeline for the return and repatriation of some of those forcibly deported from the former kingdom of Judah remains unclear, but it is generally agreed that a mass return of exiled Judahites at the advent of Persian rule never took place and instead those who chose to return to Judah did so in waves over a number of years well into the Persian period. E. g. B. Becking, “‘We All Returned as One!’ Critical Notes on the Myth of the Mass Return,” in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, 3–18; L. L. Grabbe, “‘They Shall Come Rejoicing in Zion’ – Or Did They? The Settlement of Yehud in the Early Persian

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

9

In addition, the socio-historical situation for the imperial province of Yehud, the former kingdom of Judah, has changed in terms of governance and religion. The twin prongs of Zion theology that had permeated the thought and religiopolitical sphere of the southern kingdom of Judah, the Davidic king and the centrality of the palace-temple complex in Jerusalem, were no more. Not only would the province of Yehud never have a king, the priesthood of the rebuilt temple would take on greater authority in political matters. Over time, some of the members of the former kingdom forcibly deported to the Babylonian heartland chose to return to their native homeland. Back in the province of Yehud, the repatriated exiles, collectively known as the Golah, solidified their power and created a society under their authority and guided by the law. Religious law and piety took on increasing significance under the priestly rulers. Politically, socially, and religiously Persian period Yehud assumed its own identity distinct from that which pertained during the period of the monarchy. According to the biblical material, there are three main stages of renewal that occurred during Persian rule which coincided with the leadership of Sheshbazaar, Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua (biblical Jeshua), and Erza/ Nehemiah.24 The first stage coincided with the elusive Sheshbazaar for whom we have only scant traces in the biblical literature (Ezra 1:5–11; 5:14–16; cf. 6:3–5). Soon after the creation of the Persian Empire through the military endeavors of Cyrus, Sheshbazaar was appointed as governor (!%6 according to Ezra 5:14) and commissioned to return the temple vessels to Jerusalem that had been removed by Nebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon. It is thought that Sheshbazaar was also charged with the reconstruction of the temple, but his efforts led only to laying the foundations (Ezra 5:16).25 There remains a debate about whether or not Sheshbazaar was commissioned from Babylonia at the time of Cyrus to return the temple vessels or whether he was already serving as the governor of the region and had been recalled to Babylonia to collect the vessels for return.26 Certainly, Period,” in Knoppers and Grabbe, Exile and Restoration Revisited, 116–27 and “The Reality of the Return: The Biblical Picture Versus Historical Reconstruction,” in Stökl and Waerzeggers, Exile and Return, 292–307. 24 Following the thorough analysis of S. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” USQR 44 (1991): 195–251. Cf. K. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im Persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964); P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (London: SCM, rep., 1994), 138–52; Grabbe, Judaism From Cyrus to Hadrian, 73–100; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 119–38; J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd edition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 498–540. 25 A. Gelston, “The Foundations of the Second Temple,” VT 16 (1966): 232–5. 26 The account in Chronicles mentions a Shenazzar as one of the sons of the Davidic king Jehoiachin (1 Chron. 3:18). Shenazzar has sometimes been conflated with the elusive Sheshbazaar by interpreters who argue that he returned as a descendent of David with the temple vessels and laid the foundations of the temple. The association of the two men has largely been disproven and no longer features in histories of the period. It is reasonable to regard Sheshbazaar as the

10

Jill Middlemas

his name is Babylonian, but his actual position at the time remains unclear. His activities, though, coincide with the time in which Cyrus was in Babylon and at the very least remain consistent with his polices aimed at the return of temple treasures and divine statues to their rightful places elsewhere in the empire. According to the biblical account, actual building work on the temple in Jerusalem would only resume at a later time and in conjunction with the activities of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah as well as the civic and religious leaders, Zerubbabel and Joshua. The second stage of renewal, then, coincides with the activities associated with Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua which are dated in the material to the years 520–518 BCE. The biblical record is consistent with the policies enacted over a period of time by Darius I (522–486 BCE) to reform and re-organize the empire in order to foster stability, greater imperial oversight, and the secure collection of taxes. The dedication of the temple is mentioned only in the Ezra account (6:14–22) and took place according to the Aramaic record in 515 BCE.27 The role of Darius in, at the very least agreeing to, if not also sponsoring, the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem as well as the return and repatriation of the some of the exiles remains unclear, but highly probable. The return and repatriation of a loyal group of Persian born Judahites would have participated in Darius’ attempts to foster stability throughout the far reaches of the empire just at the point when a series of revolts rocked the land. A third phase of rebuilding took place under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra whose activities led to the fortification of the city, the reformation of the law, the purification and rededication of the temple, and the creation of a unified ethnically Jewish society traced to the repatriated exiles (the Golah). Both men were authorized by the Persian king Artaxerxes to return to Yehud from Babylon and build and reform the city and the community, with Nehemiah serving as governor of the province and Ezra as an administrative official and priest.28 The books of Ezra and Nehemiah concentrate on the situation in Yehud and its struglast Neo-Babylonian governor of the province of Yehud who was reappointed by Cyrus, see the arguments by J. M. Silverman, “Sheshbazzar, a Judean or a Babylonian? A Note on His Identity,” in Stökl and Waerzeggers, Exile and Return, 308–21. 27 D. V. Edelman, The Origins of the “Second Temple”: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London: Equinox, 2005), has raised objections to dating temple reconstruction to the time of Haggai and Zechariah and suggests, instead, that it actually took place during the period associated with Ezra and Nehemiah. It is possible that the date cited in Ezra for the dedication of the temple in 515 BCE reflects an ideological number intended to coincide with the 70 years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, but there is no clear evidence that the figure is improbable. Certainly, the Jerusalem temple remained a focal point even during the Templeless period (587–515 BCE). Further repair of or construction on the temple likely also occurred in conjunction with the mission of Nehemiah, which would explain some of the evidence highlighted in her analysis. 28 The missions of Ezra and Nehemiah tend to be associated with the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424), son of Darius I. The order of the missions remains debated, but a majority regards Nehemiah arriving in Yehud before Ezra.

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

11

gles to continue to rebuild and forge a new religious identity amid the resistance of local opposition. At the same time, the literature is marked by a view towards diaspora and empire. Both books contain lists of returned exiles who participate in community building, Ezra and Nehemiah are sent to Yehud from exile, and the Persian king plays a decisive role in authorizing and supporting the initiatives of the community leaders. In the literature of the time, then, the impact of Persia is portrayed positively, as constructive and supportive, but the question, nevertheless, remains as to how to assess its actual influence. Notably, the three great historical works that dominate the story of ancient Israel – including large sections of the Torah or Pentateuch attributed to the Priestly Writer(s) in some circles, the Deuteronomistic History (the story of Joshua to 2 Kings introduced by part of the book of Deuteronomy), and the Chronisitc History, including the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles) – tend to be associated with the Persian period. To be sure, the historical presentations of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles are dated in their entirety to the period of Persian rule. What is striking about the historical presentations of the EzraNehemiah material on the one hand and the Chronisitc History on the other as Gary Knoppers, to whom the present volume is dedicated has pointed out, is that both reconstruct the history of ancient Israel in a periodic way according to a theological agenda.29 The Ezra-Nehemiah material evidences the combination of two consistent stories; the reconstruction of the second temple in Jerusalem in Ezra 1–6 and the leadership of Ezra the law giver and Nehemiah the governor for the community in Ezra 7–Nehemiah 13. In contrast, the Chronistic History focuses on a theological, even ideological, reconstruction of kingship, with particular attention to David and his son Solomon. The Deuteronomistic and Chronistic historical reconstructions, then, indicate an importance ascribed to the Davidic monarchy and Jerusalem temple that carried over from the First Temple and Templeless periods. Notably, Haggai and Zechariah represent traditions of prophecy whose activities are associated through chronological frameworks with the early years of Persian rule and they focus on the dual topoi of the priority of temple reconstruction and the return of the Davidic monarchy.30 Hence, especially these two lines of inquiry, attitudes towards the king and temple in Achaemenid Yehud, could very well benefit from 29 G. N. Knoppers, “Periodization in Ancient Israelite Historiography: Three Case Studies,” in Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstsein im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (eds. J. Wiesehöfer and T. Krüger; Oriens et Occidens 20; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2012), 121–45. Knoppers also makes the valuable point that the land was also central to the historical presentations of the Deuteronomistic History, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronistic History, so that comparing and contrasting attitudes towards the land with ANE sources would also contribute an enlightening future study. 30 E. g. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period,” 240; P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 270–99; D. J. Janzen, Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017),

12

Jill Middlemas

the comparative approach used in the essays of this volume that draw attention to the influence, but also rejection of, Persian ideas.

2. The Dual Topoi King and Temple Kingship came with temples in the ancient world. As John Lundquist writes, “The ideology of kingship in the archaic state is indelibly and incontrovertibly connected with temple building and with temple ideology”31 and Jason Silverman in the present volume further notes that kings and temples had mutually reinforcing ties that served the purpose of legitimation.32 Because the king and the temple were closely connected in First Temple ideology, temple construction was associated with the endeavours of the early Israelite kings, David and Solomon. To that end, David’s intention to build and dedicate a temple to Yahweh, the national God of ancient Israel, is fulfilled by his son, Solomon according to an account in the book of Kings: Now King Hiram of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, when he heard they had anointed him king in place of his father … Solomon sent word to Hiram, saying, ‘… I intend to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, as Yahweh said to my father David, “Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, shall build the house for my name.” Therefore command that cedars from the Lebanon be cut for me.’ (1 Kgs 5:1–5 = MT 5:15–19)

The king in ancient Israel and in the ANE was the temple builder who responded to a divine commission to build the sanctuary. In addition, the monarch played a significant role in major religious observances, organized the priests and other temple personnel, and oversaw its finances. In ancient Israel, the temple was closely associated with the monarchy and situated next to the king’s palace. Effectively, the Jerusalem temple was a royal chapel. The complex symbolized the close relationship between the monarch and the deity and thus provided divine legitimation for the head of state.33 In the southern kingdom of Judah, the importance of the temple and the king were buttressed by traditions of the 181–225. Cf. K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 31 J. M. Lundquist, The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State,” SBLSP (1982): 271–97, here 272. Cf. J. M. Lundquist, “What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (eds. H. B. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205–18; idem, The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future (London: Praeger, 2008). 32 See, chapter 5, J. M. Silverman, “Imperial Chapels or Oratories of Resistance? Differential Integration of Temples in the Persian Empire.” 33 E. g. Lundquist, “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple”; C. Meyers, “Jachim and Boaz in Religious and Political Perspective,” CBQ 45 (1983): 167–78; K. W. Whitelam, “The symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy,” BA 49 (1986): 166–73 and “King and Kingship,” ABD IV, 40–48, here 47.

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

13

election of Jerusalem and the temple as the dwelling place of Yahweh as well as promises to Davidic kings to reign in perpetuity as wielded together in Zion Theology (2 Sam 7:1–17; Psa 89:1–37). In addition, the temple also contained the financial resources and the written records of the state so its function was more expansive than for religious observance alone. As many of the essays in the volume show, in the ancient world, religion, politics, economics, and society merged in the physical space of the temple complex. The connection of the deity to the monarchy and human kingly symbols as well as the divine presence in the temple itself would be called into question and re-conceptualized after the fall of Jerusalem that coincided with the destruction of the central sanctuary in Jerusalem precisely because, as one interpreter puts it, when the kingdom of Judah fell to the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE “the old-style temple and kingship theology with their unconditional guarantees of salvation had totally failed.”34 2.1 The Loss of the King In the First Temple period the king functioned as the main civic and religious leader. The story of kings, sometimes still regarded as part of the larger written project of the Deuteronomistic historian ended on a depressing note with the last descendant of king David released from Babylonian prison, but nevertheless located in Babylon, as one of many privileged guests of the king. The end of Kings echoed in the book of Jeremiah situates the Davidic scion in Babylon for perpetuity. In the thought of certain circles, the king would never return to a position of authority to guide the nation. In other thought, however, like that of the prophets Haggai and First Zechariah, a Davidide would return and rule independently or jointly with a priest. In the Persian period, the lack of a king and the governing system of the monarchy led to the increased significance of the clergy and religious matters. Although accounts about kingship in the Old Testament material vary in terms of the acceptance and the rejection thereof, the system of the monarchy existed for almost 4 centuries within the biblical account. Not only does the biblical presentation suggest an association of the institution of the Israelite monarchy with the desire to align with the system of governance found more widely in the ANE (see 1 Sam 8), the ideology of kingship in the record of the books of Kings and the Psalms corresponds to that found in Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, and Egypt. When seen in this way, the Israelite king of the First Temple period was a military leader, a judge, and a priest charged with insuring the maintenance of the social order as determined by the divinely ordained cosmic order. In certain of the royal Psalms (conservatively, Pss. 2; 45; 72; 101; 110), the king is portrayed 34 R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1992), 369.

14

Jill Middlemas

as the first born of the deity, the anointed, and even God’s (adopted) son. It is generally agreed that the Israelite monarch acted as an envoy and representative of Yahweh, but was otherwise not regarded as divine, which marks a contrast to the ideology of the king elsewhere in some of the nations of the ANE, namely Egypt and Mesopotamia. In ancient Israel, then, “The king was the central symbol of the social system. His prime function was the establishment and maintenance of [divinely ordained] order throughout the kingdom.”35 Different attitudes towards kingship are reflected in the literature of the First Temple period. Certainly within the southern kingdom of Judah, the literature portrays a divine blessing on David that is an unconditional promise that became subject to various conditions. Moreover, kingship was an internal Israelite development and traditions or traditionists placed the king under the authority of and responsible to the interpreters of the law or the deuteronomists (Deut 17:14–20). Thus, “The Deuteronomist is distinctive not only in his promotion of David, but also in the force he expects kings to wield in building the temple, sustaining the temple cultus, and defending the temple’s right to the exclusive allegiance of all Israelites.”36 In the literature of the time, there were different conceptualizations about which institutions from the period of the monarchy should be re-established and then also how. Moreover, the concept of governance took the shape of a diarchy early on whereas later ideology of a theocracy came to the fore. By and large, references to a human king and the monarchy are made much less frequently than those of the temple in Jerusalem. The writers and redactors of Second Temple times focused more on religious matters rather than on civic rule. Nevertheless, biblical literature of the Persian period like that of Chronicles promoted the concept of the ideal king, and other literature still conveyed conceptions of the messianic ruler, the latter of which lies outside of the scope of the present volume. In the first section of the volume, the essays focus on conceptions of kingship in Yehud in comparative perspective from a variety of angles. Louis Jonker in, “Is the book of Chronicles Yehud’s equivalent of Bisitun?,” considers the possible influence of the Bisitun (Behistun) inscription of Darius I on literary traditions in the Old Testament. He argues that the books of Chronicles react to and polemicize the language and ideology of the Bisitun inscription. Bernard Gosse provides a close analysis of the role of the king figured in Persian period literature by comparing relevant traditions in the Psalter. In his, “David and Moses in Postexilic Times” he shows that not only is David portrayed like Moses, but also that Moses even becomes the substitute for David in a number of texts. W. Dennis Tucker, Jr, stays with the theme of the Davidic king in the Psalter, but also takes 35

Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” 44. G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King,” ZAW 108 (1996): 329–42, here 333–34. 36

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

15

into consideration Achaemenid portrayals of kings in “Creation, Kingship, and the Reframing of the Monarchy in the Psalter: A Comparative Analysis.” He finds that in the Persian period, Yahweh is emphasized as creator and ruler, while David is recast as the ideal and righteous human who is dependent on the saving actions of the deity. Deirdre N. Fulton in her essay, “‘Seeking the God of his Father’: Examining King Josiah’s Early Reforms in 2 Chronicles 34 in Light of Persian Period Kingship,” focuses on the figuration of Josiah in comparative perspective. Through a comparison of depictions of Josiah in 2 Kings 22–23 and 2 Chronicles 34–35 with Persian conceptions of kingship, she reveals a distinctive Chronicler presentation of Josiah as the good king who not only actively seeks the God of his fathers since the days of his youth, but on that basis also institutes a series of reforms for the betterment of the land and his people. 2.2 The Loss of the Temple The prophecies regarding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, like that found in the book of Jeremiah, “therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your ancestors, just what I did to Shiloh” (Jer 7:14), came to pass during the downfall of Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE. The temple became a ruin, “God has broken down [god’s] booth like a garden, has destroyed [god’s] tabernacle” (Lam. 2:6), “scorned [god’s] altar, disowned [god’s] sanctuary … a clamour was raised in the house of the LORD as on a day of festival” (Lam. 2:7), and “Mount Zion, which lies desolate; jackals prowl over it” (Lam. 5:18). The central symbol of the cult and nation of the southern kingdom along with the monarchy and the independent statehood of the kingdom of Judah were no more.37 Long had the palace of the king been alongside the temple of Yahweh, but the Babylonians eradicated both edifices in their fierce attack against the city of the Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Like the northern kingdom, whose king, palaces, and temples were destroyed over a century earlier (722 BCE), the last of the two kingdoms traced to the founding father David lay in ruins. In contrast to their northern brethren, former inhabitants of the southern kingdom would survive and reconstruct anew the symbols of their broken country in such a way as to ride out the vicissitudes of empire for another 6 centuries. Roman forces ultimately eradicated the second 37 A great deal of my own research since my doctoral dissertation, published as Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah, has focused on assessing what can be known of the historical, archaeological, and imperial situation of a fallen southern kingdom of Judah and the inhabitants left behind and perceptions about the same, especially in conjunction with Yahwistic and less orthodox religious practices and belief. See also, Middlemas, The Templeless Age and “Going Beyond the Myth of the Empty Land.” I have argued that an alternative sanctuary had been established in the Benjamin region, possibly in Bethel, to which more regular worship, especially lamentation, relates.

16

Jill Middlemas

temple that had been meticulously and elaborately restored by Herod the Great in 70 CE. In common with the ideology of temple destruction in the ancient world, the Babylonian desecration and demolition of the sanctuary in Jerusalem was understood as the willful act of the deity for moral and community failings as well as covenant infractions. In the ancient Near East as in ancient Israel, the temple represented a sacred space in which heaven and earth merged.38 The deity could descend to rule on earth exactly at a holy place that marked the intersection of the heavenly and earthly realms. The temple was regarded as the earthly abode or the house of God and not the location for public assembly and prayer. As such, it was the location in which priests brought offerings to sustain and humour the deity and from which divine blessing issued forth. The temple represented a significant tangible symbol for Jewish hopes for political, societal, and religious renewal and of Jewish solidarity. The biblical literature posited to the period after the rise of Cyrus (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, Ezra 1–6, and Chronicles) traces the origins of the second temple to the Persian king, inspired by Yahweh and supported by local religious, civic, and prophetic leaders. According to the biblical account, the sanctuary destroyed by the Neo-Babylonians in 587 BCE was rebuilt in Jerusalem through the inspiring initiatives of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the civic leaders Sheshbazaar and Zerubbabel, and the religious leader Jeshua, with the explicit authorization of Cyrus, the Persian King. Notably, the conclusion of the books of Chronicles contains a truncated and highly idealized report of the involvement of the Persian king that effectively summarizes the introduction to Ezra – the person and the book (Ezra 1:1–4). It is generally agreed that the notice of Cyrus’ involvement in the prospects of return represents an ideological rather than an historical account of the reconstruction of the second temple: In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of Yahweh spoken by Jeremiah, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald througout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: ‘Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: Yahweh, 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 Yahweh his God be with Him! Let him go up.’” (2 Chron. 36:22–23)

38 E. g. R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965); M. Ottosson, Temple and Cultic Places in Palestine (Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilization 12; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1980); A. Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 62; Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 1998); M. B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East (WAWSup 3; Atlanta: SBL 2013). See, also, J. Middlemas, “Temples and Templeless Times,” Collegium Biblicum Årsskrift (2009): 31–41, and references cited therein.

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

17

No extant copy of a proclamation granting Persian authorization for the reconstruction of the second temple in Jerusalem exists outside of the biblical literature, but the so-called Cyrus Cylinder provides anecdotal evidence of imperial support for the restoration of local communities, the return of temple idols and other sacred items, and the reconstruction of sacred shrines and sanctuaries at least in the Babylonian region (COS 2:314–16; ANET 315–16). On the Cyrus Cylinder, the king pledges support for restoration limited to the vicinity of the Mesopotamian regions and Persia, thus: (As to the region) from … as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna, the towns of Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon … to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy. (from ANET)

The Cyrus Cylinder attests to the sentiment of the biblical account, but remains limited in scope to the Mesopotamian region. Nevertheless, however suspect the attribution of an edict from the Persian King Cyrus authorizing the reconstruction of a sanctuary in the far reaches of the Empire, as in Jerusalem, may in actuality be,39 the biblical record posits the origins of the temple to the earliest period of Persian rule and then dates its dedication to 515 BCE (Ezra 6:15). In this way, biblical ideology associates the construction of Jerusalem’s second temple with Achaemenid imperial authority as well as attributing it to communal commitment spurred on by the deity of ancient Israel and reinforced through prophetic motivation and the Persian king. At least one of the priorities in efforts to reconstruct and rebuild the shattered kingdom of Judah was to rebuild the temple. However, in comparison to the details available from the literary record and by comparison to other sacred temples and sanctuaries in the ancient world, little is known of the second temple except with respect to its ideology. It is significant that there is no detailed information about the actual structure itself other than the rather mournful note that it was only a shadow of its former self (so Haggai). According to the book of Haggai, the temple was less impressive and less richly decorated than the first temple, whose construction was included among the construction projects that took place at 39 E. g. P. R. Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch,” ZA 64 (1975): 192–234; R. J. Van der Spek, “Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy towards Subdued Nations? Cyrus in Assyrian Perspective,” Persica 10 (1982): 278–83; M. Cogan, “Cyrus Cylinder,” The Context of Scripture, ii: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (ed. W. W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 314–16; Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder.”

18

Jill Middlemas

the time of Solomon. From the outset, Solomon’s national sanctuary was also affiliated with Phoenician material, labour, and models: [Solomon] “Therefore command that cedars from the Lebanon be cut for me. My servants will join your servants, and I will give you whatever wages you set … for you know that there is no one among us who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians.”… So Hiram supplied Solomon’s every need for timber of cedar and cypress. (1 Kgs. 5:6–10 = MT 5:20–24)

Details of the material used in construction of the temple, its measurements, and its furnishings, décor, and other associated buildings in the biblical account align the Solomonic temple with Phoenician models. The account of the construction of the first temple thus invites comparison to data available from the ancient world. Knowledge of ANE sanctuaries from the Bronze and Iron ages as well as the ideology of temples provide points of comparison, flesh out tantalizingly slim details in the biblical account (e. g. the windows), and enrich our understanding of the cosmological associations of conceptions of the temple in ideology and theology.40 In addition to the biblical texts, then, the best recourse to understanding the actual physical structure of the first temple associated with David and Solomon stems from attention to ANE comparative evidence, including excavated shrines and temples, artifacts and iconographic finds that illuminate features of the building, décor and furnishings, and extant documents related to sanctuaries and palaces that enable better understanding of conceptions of cosmology, ideology, and theology.41 More information has been made available through the analyses of Elizabeth Bloch-Smith who has consolidated biblical and archaeological evidence in order to illuminate the symbolism of the interior and exterior of Solomon’s temple.42 40 E. g. T. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologischhistorische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, Vol. 1, Der Tempel Salomos (SFSMD 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970); J. Margueron, “Les origins syriennes du temple de Jerusalem,” Le Monde de la Bible 20 (1981): 31–33; V. Fritz, “Temple Architecture: What Can Archaeology Tell Us about Solomon’s Temple?,” BAR 13 (1987): 38–49; B. Janowski, “Der Himmel auf Erden: Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt Israels,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (eds. B. Janowski and B. Ego; FAT 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 229–60. 41 The closest parallels are located in Northern Syria and include sanctuaries located in ‘Ain Dara and Tayinat (alternatively spelled Tainat and Ta‘yanat). John Monson argues that the temple in ‘Ain Dara corresponds more closely in architecture, size, and in time to the temple of the biblical Kings account, see J. Monson, “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem,” in Zion: City of Our God (ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1–22 and “The New ‘Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel,” BAR 26 (2000): 20–35, 67. Cf. A. Abu–Assaf, Der Tempel von ‘Ain Dara (DF 3; Mainz: Philip von Zabern, 1990). 42 E. Bloch-Smith, “Who is the King of Glory? Solomon’s Temple and its Symbolism,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King (ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, L. E. Stager; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 18–31 and “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (ed. B. Gittlen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 83–94. Cf. M. S. Smith,

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

19

According to the account in Kings, the courtyard contained a number of physical structures, including two pillars of 12 cubits with bronze capitals of 5 cubits (1 Kgs. 7:15–22), the molten sea 10 cubits round and 5 cubits in height supported by the backs of 12 statuary oxen (1 Kgs. 7:23–26), ten lavers or stands measuring 3 cubits in height complete with basins of 4 cubits each (1 Kgs. 7:27–38). Because the length of a cubit is thought to be roughly equivalent to the human forearm,43 the description of the items emphasizes their great, even exaggerated, size. Even without the comparative material, the details of the items in Kings convey a sense of immense proportions. In the biblical depiction, then, the items of the first temple provide visual confirmation of an invisible and supersized deity, which corresponds to Isaiah’s vision attributed to the time of his call and commissioning, in which the garments of the deity spill out from the inner sanctum into the temple itself, “I saw Adonai sitting on a high and lofty throne; and the hem of god’s robe filled the temple” (Isa. 6:1). This brief summary of the ideology and iconography of the temple establishes a number of areas that distinguish it from representations of the sanctuary in Jerusalem in the Second Temple period (515 BCE–70 CE). For example, in the post-fall period, the emphasis on Yahweh stresses not the deity’s size, but rather otherworldliness, to emphasize a deity of heavenly, cosmic, and even universal scope. In addition and in the highly ideological visionary account of the restored temple in the final chapters of the book of Ezekiel (chs. 40–48), the deity is effectively distanced from the physical structure of the temple.44 Moreover, the construction of the second temple is not associated with foreign labour and influence, but rather with a Yahweh-led initiative guided by the activities of the prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, and fulfilled by the people who are encouraged into action by their words. Further, the account in Chronicles draws the temple project into the tradition history of ancient Israel recounted in the Genesis to Numbers material while also elevating and idealizing the role of King David.45 As the ideal king, David establishes a religious center in Jerusalem and plays a significant role in planning and organizing the religious cult.46 In this way, the kingdom portrayed in Chronicles and retrojected onto the monarchical period is a worshipping community whose focus is on the Jerusalem temple.

“Like Deities, Like Temples,” in Day, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 3–27. 43 M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD VI, 897–908. 44 S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); J. D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–98; P. M. Joyce, “Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40–48,” in Day, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 145–63. 45 J. Jarick, “The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles,” in Day, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 365–84. 46 E. g. P. M. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 1999), 106–7.

20

Jill Middlemas

Traced to the former traditions of the two kingdoms and especially to those associated with the southern kingdom, a community would center itself around Jerusalem again, but in a slightly different form, as a province in a wider empire, without a king and where the center of regional power was concentrated in the temple and its personnel.47 Since the Jerusalem sanctuary of the Persian period belongs to the traditions of first temple Israel, it is understood to be the product of Yahwistic intentionality and an obedient Yehudite response. However, the biblical emphasis on rebuilding the temple under the authority of a non-Israelite king – the Persian imperial overlord – raises the question of what attention to Persian temple ideology could yield to our understanding of the Yehudite temple. Let me conclude this overview by pointing out where I believe the ideology of the second temple could further benefit from a comparative approach in relation to the programmatic use of anti-iconism that comes to fruition in second temple times. Victor Hurowitz has shown that there are varieties of temple ideology that find expression in the Persian period along with a notable degree of demythologization in terms of the understanding of the temple.48 In the literature of Haggai and Zechariah, the sanctuary remains the location of divine presence and the name, but in the prophecies of Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66) the deity only partly occupies the temple, although the sanctuary remains the location of Yahweh’s salvific intervention in history.49 In sharp contrast, the sanctuary becomes the place of sacrifice, where human agents labour on behalf of the deity in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, rather than the location of indwelling divine presence. Another ideological conception of the temple that arises out of my own research and deserves more scrutiny from a comparative perspective has to do with the emphasis on the word of God instead of on the divine image in the Second Temple literature.50 In Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple, the cherubim could be within the sanctuary on the walls of the temple, but they could no longer appear in the debir or inner sanctum to form the divine throne. At the same time, the ark of the covenant, which is the symbol that most closely parallels the divine statues of neighbouring peoples in theology and use, also fails to materialize in the restored temple. By comparison, the menorah or the golden candelabra is allowed to represent the presence of Yahweh with its flames of fire in First Zechariah and the 47 The present observation remains focused on the topics of interest of kingship and temple within the essays of the present volume and is not meant to discount the role of the governor in Persian period Yehud. 48 See, e. g. V. A. Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House – Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Day, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 63–110. 49 See the analysis of Isa. 66:1–6 in J. Middlemas, “Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah,” in Day, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 164–87, here 178–81. 50 J. Middlemas, The Divine Image: Prophetic Aniconic Rhetoric and its Contribution to the Aniconism Debate (FAT 2/ 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

Introduction: The Restoration of the King and Temple in Persian Period Yehud

21

sanctuary itself is spoken of with language formerly used for the ark as the place of Yahweh’s feet in Ezekiel (Ezek. 43:7).51 Taken together these details suggest an intentional policy to reject temple paraphernalia that could project a fixed and stabilized form of the deity in preference for more ambiguous and multivalent imagery. How Second Temple aniconism and the flames of the menorah relate to Persian ideology of fire and the deity Ahura Mazda presents another opportunity for future research. Constructively, the contributors to this volume have focused attention on the role and ideology of the Persian period Jerusalem temple in a number of ways that create new synergies upon which subsequent research can draw. The first essay by Jason M. Silverman, “Imperial Chapels or Oratories of Resistance? Differential Integration of Temples in the Persian Empire” provides detailed summaries of the fiscal and administrative roles of temples in the first millennium in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Fars in order to establish a base line with which to consider the construction of regional sanctuaries in Yehud and Samaria. His survey suggests that the legitimizing purpose of temples within the Persian empire could potentially play a larger role in the marginal regions of the empire, which would speak to a Persian interest in the establishment of cultic centers in the far reaches of the empire, as in Yehud. Along similar lines, but with a more concentrated focus on the economic roles of temples, Daniel Bodi in “The Temple in Persian Times as a Viable Economic Entity: A Comparison of Jerusalem’s Temple and Uruk’s Eanna” argues that the Jerusalem temple could have been a viable economic unit with a prebendary system like Mesopotamian temples in Persian times. Another perspective on the ideology of the temple appears in Samasoni Moleli’s, “Cultic worship with ':)1 according to 1 Kings 8:41–43.” Through comparative study, he divulges the changing role of the sanctuary in post-exilic texts and the extension of biblical promises to all nations. His close analysis of the biblical texts set within awareness of its Persian background reveals that changing conceptions of the role of the temple as a place open to all Israelites and even foreigners may commend a post-exilic context for 1 Kings 8:41–43. Finally, Gard Granerød concludes the volume with a thorough study of the contribution of the Jewish temple in Elephantine to the concept of the central sanctuary in Jerusalem and the conception of Yahweh therein in “What Were the Elephantine Judaeans’ Conceptions of YHW? Aspects of the Elephantine Judaean Temple Theology.” In his careful analysis of the theology that is found expressed in the textual deposits of Elephantine Judaeans, he finds compatibility with and contrast to biblical thought about Yahweh, the community of the deity, and the temple. Specifically with reference to the temple, the evidence suggests that the Elephantine 51 Ibid., 80–83. Cf. J. Middlemas, “Transformation of the Image,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition and Theology in Ezekiel (eds. W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons; PTMS; Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 113–38.

22

Jill Middlemas

Judaeans regarded Yahweh as having multiple earthly dwellings simultaneously, which would argue against an emphasis on cult centralization in the early Persian period. All of the contributors to the volume tackle the fraught question of how to understand kingship and the temple in the Persian period in comparative perspective. As such, they contribute to emerging scholarly interest in the extent of Persian influence on the literature of ancient/ biblical Israel. In so doing, the essays contained herein represent a series of inquiries that participate in, lay the groundwork for, and also shape, discussions of Persian period Yehud and its literature going forward. As such, it represents a fitting tribute to the life and work of Gary Knoppers (1956–2018) who lost his battle with pancreatic cancer in December 2018. In his textual and thematic analyses, Knoppers used a rigorous comparative approach to shed light on the history, literature, and thought of the Old Testament. His participation in ongoing debate and discovery will be sorely missed, but his research has passed the torch to a new generation of scholars. Our volume aligns with the vigour of his scholarship and sets out lines for promising future debates and discussions on the king and temple in the Persian period. As a final note on the chapters, quotations of single words or translation are found with single quotes, while quotations of biblical verses or other texts are found in double quotes. In addition, the volume has reduced the use of transliteration to a minimum. Where expedient, transliteration has been replaced with the anglicized equivalents (as in the name Ishtar, for example), but retained for other proper names, particularly those used for place names or where there is no equivalent. Hebrew words are found in Hebrew font, but other languages of the ancient Near East (e. g. Aramaic, Babylonian, etc) are found transliterated.

I. Conceptions of the King and Kingship

Is the book of Chronicles Yehud’s equivalent of Bisitun? LOUIS C. JONKER There is a consensus in biblical scholarship that large parts of the Hebrew Bible were written and/or composed during the Persian era. The Persian era mentioned here started with Cyrus the Great’s conquering of Babylon in 539 BCE and with the release of the Judahite and Israelite exiles from the following year.1 The period of restoration in Jerusalem and Yehud was a direct consequence of these developments on the international scene. The Persians, and particularly Cyrus the Great, receive a fairly positive treatment in the Hebrew Bible, with the latter even called the ‘anointed’ (or %'