RBL 04/2011 Knoppers, Gary N., and Lester L. Grabbe, with Deirdre N. Fulton, eds. Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd Library of Second Temple Studies 73 New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Pp. x + 225. Hardcover. $130.00. ISBN 9780567122568. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer University of Aberdeen Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom This collection of twelve articles stems from two sessions the Chronicles-Ezra- Nehemiah session and the Literary and History of the Persian Period group at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in Washington, D.C., in November 2006. As the name implies, it is a tribute to P. R. Ackroyd and to his book Exile and Restoration. Most of the contributors are well-established scholars and experts on matters relating to the postexilic period. The majority come from North American institutions of higher education, but European scholarship is also well-represented. The essays are of a consistently high quality, and the volume is well-edited, with both a source and an author index. Yet some minor aspects could have been better. For example, Grabbe s discussion of Dan 9 (119) and the preceding essay on Dan 9 by Bergsma are not cross-referenced. Likewise, the term Bethel in Zech 7:1 3 is addressed in three essays (Blenkinsopp, Middlemas, Ristau), yet there are no cross-references. The volume opens with a short presentation of Ackroyd s scholarly work, followed by a relatively comprehensive summary of all the essays in the present volume, as well as a brief discussion of some of the major themes of the essays, such as issues of terminology, use of sources, historiography, the status of Jerusalem and its relationship with the
Persian Empire and the other provinces, issues within the Judahite community, and, finally, the question of literacy in this community. The first essay, by Bob Becking, reinvestigates the foreignness of the foreign women in Ezra 9 10, with a focus on what we know about the ethnic composition of the Judahite society in the fifth century B.C.E. Were these women ethnically foreign, that is, belonging to neighboring peoples, or were they rather religiously foreign, indigenous to Judah but part of a group of people who did not agree with the way that the Ezra-group worshiped YHWH? Becking further discusses D. Janzen s recent claims that the decision to divorce these women was a ritualized act of purification of the type that can be labeled a witchhunt. Becking investigates systematically the available onomastic evidence. Beginning with the lists in Ezra 2//Neh 7, Becking notes the large number of non-israelite theophoric elements in the listed names, yet maintains that the list is too small for us to conclude anything firmly about the multiethnic/multireligious character of Judah. In a similar manner, Becking then surveys the names found on the Tell al-mazār Ostracon VII, the Samaria Papyri, and the archive from Māqqēdāh. As in the previous case, Becking insists that as the sample is too small, and, as the identity of the people mentioned is to a large extent unknown, we cannot draw any firm conclusions. Finally, the texts from Māqqēdāh refer to temples to deities other than YHWH. Based on this, Becking concludes that this may reflect peaceful coexistence in Judah of various ethnic and religious groups. Becking concludes the that foreign women were probably Judahite women and that Ezra s marriage reform shares many characteristics with a witch-hunt. John S. Bergsma discusses the differences between the received text and the perceived text, with focus on the interpretation of Dan 9. Bergsma focuses on three points that exegetes normally misinterpret. (1) Contrary to what is often claimed, Daniel understands what Jeremiah meant by seventy years. The issue is rather that Daniel is bothered by the lack of fulfillment of Jeremiah s prophecy. (2) Daniel s prayer is not a request for exegetical insight. Instead, it is a penitential prayer through which Daniel seeks to remove the obstacles that until now have hindered the fulfillment of Jeremiah s prophecy. (3) Gabriel, the interpreting angel, does not reinterpret Jeremiah s oracle concerning the seventy years but rather gives a new revelation. Bergsma argues that the passage as a whole proclaims that Jeremiah s prophecy has not been fulfilled because of the people s sinfulness. Daniel then confesses the sins of the community, which results in a new prophecy that promises restoration in another seven times seventy years. Joseph Blenkinsopp explores the curious fact that only Chronicles, three later additions to Ezra-Nehemiah, and the Priestly parts of the Torah trace the lineage of the Israelite priesthood back to Aaron. He surveys the textual evidence of the development of the
priesthood. He also reinvestigates Robert H. Kennett s century-old proposal that the Aaronic priests were associated with the sanctuary in Bethel. In 586 B.C.E., when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, this priesthood came to its forte. Under Joshua the high priest, regarded by Kennett as an Aaronite, the Aaronite priesthood took over the rebuilt Jerusalem temple. Blenkinsopp adopts the general outline of Kennett s arguments that the Aaronites could have been the Bethel priesthood. It is further plausible that the sanctuary in Bethel gained in importance as the only standing temple to YHWH (cf. Zech 7:1 3) after the Neo-Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. At the same time, Blenkinsopp rejects Joshua s postulated Aaronite origin as well Kennett s claim that the Bethel priesthood ruled in Jerusalem. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi provides a survey of scholarship on Ezra-Nehemiah with focus on recent development in six areas. (1) Archaeology: New evidence has come to light that strongly suggests that neither Samaria nor Benjamin was as hard hit by the Neo- Babylonian onslaught as Judah was. This, in turn, may be one reason for the resistance to any kind of collaboration with Samaria that Ezra-Nehemiah expresses. (2) Close analysis of biblical texts: Two monographs, Michael W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra- Nehemiah, and Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity, have together given scholars a firm textual and methodological ground upon which further studies can build. (3) Sources for the study of the postexilic period: Much primary and secondary material has been published, including research on the Edomites and a critical edition of the Elephantine documents. (4) Collaborative scholarship: A number of workshops have taken place that, among other things, have resulted in very useful collections of essays. (5) The Torah: Although scholarship is further away from a consensus than ever when it comes to understanding the composition history of the Pentateuch, several useful volumes, among them The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson), have been published. (6) New emphases and approaches: Eskenazi highlights especially the relevance of postcolonial studies for reaching a better understanding of Persian period Judah. Deirdre N. Fulton argues that, contrary to the scholarly consensus, the list in Neh 12:10 11 does not list high priests. The consensus view is an assumption based on the mention of Joshua, together with the fact that several of the names were carried by high priests. Fulton points out that the list in Neh 12 never uses the term high priest. She suggests, instead, that it served to emphasize Joshua s priestly lineage. This interpretation settles a number of hitherto problematic issues and provides several benefits. First, it eliminates the alleged discrepancy between Neh 12:10 11 and 22, as there is no need to choose between Johanan and Jonathan. Second, Neh 12:10 11 can no longer be used as an argument against the claim that Ezra was a high priest. Finally, it confirms that Josephus s account is no more than an interpretation of Neh 12:10 11.
In his first essay, Lester L. Grabbe reinvestigates Joshua s and Zerubabbel s date of arrival in Judah. Diana Edelman has recently argued that, contrary to the dates found in the biblical texts, the activity of these two men belongs in the mid-fifth century B.C.E. Grabbe looks at the extant evidence and maintains that, (1) according to the Cyrus Cylinder, it is reasonable to assume that some Jews returned shortly after 539 B.C.E.; (2) the references to seventy years in Zech 2:12 and 7:1 7 imply that the writer(s) of these texts saw the restoration beginning roughly seventy (not 150) years after 586 B.C.E., that is, around 520 B.C.E.; (3) the Sheshbazzar tradition in Ezra supports a return in the sixth century; (4) the claim in Zech 7:7 that the Shephelah and the Negev were uninhabited fits the existing archaeological data from the end of the sixth century; (5) the evidence in the Nehemiah memoir suggests that Jerusalem was inhabited and the temple rebuilt at the time of Nehemiah s arrival; and (6) the genealogies of Joshua and Zerubabbel in Haggai and Zechariah firmly identify them as individuals one generation removed from the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. Conversely, if Zerubbabel and Joshua did arrive in the mid-fifth century, why have the biblical records gone to such trouble to disassociate them from Nehemiah and instead to imply that the restoration took place over several generations? Grabbe s second essay challenges the prevalent view that postexilic Jerusalem was a Persian garrison. Through a close study of the text of the book of Nehemiah, Grabbe concludes that there is little in the extant narrative that supports such a view. On the contrary, Nehemiah portrays a city that is prone to rebel, that can easily be attacked so that there is a need to arm the builders of the city wall, and where the wall is built to בירה prevent goods from being brought into Jerusalem. Furthermore, the use of the term in Neh 7:2 does not necessarily mean citadel but can also mean temple (cf. 1 Chr 29:1, 19). Vadim S. Jigoulov s comparative study looks at the administration of Achaemenid Phoenicia. Jigoulov investigates classical authors (e.g., Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus), epigraphic sources (e.g., the funerary inscription of Batnoam of Byblos [KAI, 11], the inscription of Eshmunazor, an inscription found in the Sippar region [CT, 55, no. 435]), and material culture (e.g., buildings, primarily temples, that display an architectural style typical of Persia) for the light it can shed on the imperial role in the local administration of Phoenicia. He makes a case for what he calls managed autonomy, that is, that the Phoenician city-states were able to conduct their affairs largely unhindered by the Achaemenid authorities. Reinhard G. Kratz stresses the development in methodology since the publication of Ackroyd s Exile and Restoration, yet also emphasizes the ways in which Ackroyd s own methodology was more advanced than that of many of his contemporaries. Kratz s
discussion focuses on Ackroyd s clear distinction between thought and history and highlights that it presupposes that we know what history really is, something that recent historiographic theory has shown that we do not. Kratz further notes that there is a difference between the ancient Israelites, who did not distinguish between thought and history but presented the former as history, and modern historians, who must distinguish between the two. In view of this, it is no longer possible to think that we can discern Hebrew thought from the biblical texts alone. Instead, we must make use of extrabiblical material. However, given the uncertainty of dating of the biblical material, it is often impossible to reach a clear picture of what the thoughts of a certain time period were. As aptly put, we do not find the majority of the thought of the sixth century in the biblical books treated by Ackroyd, but rather the thoughts about the sixth century BCE (162). Eric M. Meyers s short contribution surveys recent archaeological and demographic studies pertaining to the number of people living in Judah in the early Persian period, as well as the relationship between different groups of people, with focus on the works by Lipschits and Carter. Jill A. Middlemas explores the consequences that a continuously populated Judah during the templeless period the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. to the rebuilding of the temple in 515 B.C.E. have for our understanding of this time period. First, a continuously inhabited Judah suggests continuity in terms of traditions and concerns. This can be seen in, among other places, Haggai s dependency upon the preexilic chaoskampf motif. Second, we should not read the social concerns of Ezra 1 6 back into the templeless period. For instance, given that more contemporary evidence suggests a relatively high degree of social integration at that time, it may be incorrect to interpret the conflict between different groups of people in Isa 56 66 as a conflict between the homeland population and the repatriates. Finally, a continuously inhabited Judah has ramifications for our understanding of the Zion motif in postexilic prophetic texts. Zechariah 7:2, for example, implies that the call to return to Zion was for exiles and Judahites alike. Finally, Kenneth A. Ristau investigates the role of Jerusalem in Zech 1 8. Ristau argues that the portrayal of Jerusalem mixes elements of eschatological and pragmatic character. He sees the restoration of the city as the key element of much of Zechariah s vision report, as well as of the oracular material throughout Zech 1 8. Each of the first four visions highlights a particular concern relating to Jerusalem. For example, while the first vision speaks of God s return to the city, the second one announces the removal of its enemies. At the same time, the material hints at the less than positive present conditions in Jerusalem. Through the eschatological descriptions, we receive a glance of an impoverished and underpopulated city without city walls. The text as a whole thus looks
ahead at the envisioned fulfillment of God s promises yet remains in the implied present where they are still unfulfilled.