ABSTRACT
Introduction Our analysis of the potentially relevant textual and artifactual source material concerning when and why the temple was rebuilt in the Persian period is now complete. We have concluded that the account in Ezra 1-6 is not historically reliable and does not reflect the use of any underlying sources that stem directly from this event in its composition. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, on the other hand, seem to reflect prophecies made in connection with the temple’s reconstruction. They have been secondarily arranged at a later time using the temple-building template, and in addition, an even later editor has assigned historically unreliable dates under Darius I and created an artificial gap in the construction process of two years in order to weave together the parallel accounts into a single narrative. The historical prophecies themselves are framed according to standard ancient Near Eastern thought about the temple-building process, leaving us without any reliable information about why the temple would have been rebuilt. The artifactual evidence reveals an increase in the Persian period of new farmsteads and small hamlets in the regions of Benjamin, the Shephelah, and the central and southern Judean hill-country. A number of forts and relay stations were also constructed within the territory, along the main road from Beersheva to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem to the coastal plain via Lakish. None can be dated specifically to the reign of Artaxerxes I, so this increase in settlement may or may not be the result of policies instituted during his reign. The genealogical information in the book of Nehemiah indicates that Zerubbabel and Nehemiah were probably a generation apart in age and either served contemporaneously in office as Persian-appointed officials or succeeded to the same office. As a result, we either need to move the temple-building, which Haggai and Zechariah set under the leadership of Zerubbabel, back in time to the early reign of Artaxerxes I (465-425 BCE) or possibly even at the end of the reign of Xerxes (486-465 BCE), or move the rebuilding of Jerusalem to be the provincial seat forward in time to the reign of Darius. Of these two options, the first is preferable. The editor of Haggai-Zechariah 8 has assigned a date for the rebuilding of the temple to Darius to show that Jeremiah’s prediction that the land of Judah would lay desolate seventy years was accomplished in real time. His dates are not accurate. In addition, Elephantine papyrus AP 30 confirms that Sanballat/Sinuballit, who was active as governor of Yehud during the time that Nehemiah was overseeing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, was either still alive in 410 BCE or was dead, but had two grown sons at this time. This information is consistent
with his serving as governor during the 450s, when Jerusalem was being rebuilt. He cannot be moved back in time to the reign of Darius I. In addition to this material, we have the claim in the secondary source of 2 Macc. 1.18 that Nehemiah built the temple and the altar that Josephus repeats (Ant. 11.165). He apparently considered the passage in 2 Maccabees to have contained reliable information. As discussed in the conclusion to Chapter 2, an ideological rejection of the right of the Davidic dynasty to return to power in the post-exilic community might have led the author of 2 Maccabees or of the letter in 1.10-2.18 to attribute the dedication secondarily to Nehemiah, to deprive Zerubbabel of any credit in the temple’s restoration. On the other hand, this tradition might equally preserve the actual course of events, which was still known in priestly or in scribal circles over 300 years after the temple’s rebuilding. In spite of literary attempts to alter this history to have prophetic predictions be fulfilled in real time through the production of Haggai-Zechariah 8 and Ezra 1-6, some details of the actual situation may have been handed down, either orally, or in records dating from this period. Our evaluation of the written sources has pointed to the reign of Artaxerxes I as the time when the temple was rebuilt. This is also the time when the city walls were rebuilt and the site effectively was re-inhabited. It is logical to associate the two processes and to see the temple’s reconstruction to be part of the larger refurbishment of Jerusalem. Why did Artaxerxes decide to rebuild Jerusalem, when Mizpah had been serving adequately as the provincial seat since 586 BCE? Jerusalem was rebuilt as a birah. In this case, the term means more than a free-standing fort, although it appears it can be used to designate such a structure. The same term was used in Wadi Daliyeh papyri #1.1 and 4.1 to describe Samaria, the provincial seat of Samerina (Gropp 2001: 34-35, 65-66).1 It also was used in the Elephantine papyri to describe the settlements at Yeb (e.g. BMP 3.4; 4.2; 5.2; 7.1, 2; 9.2; 10.2; 12.2, 3; 14.2; Kraeling 1953) and at Syene, on the bank of the Nile opposite the island (e.g. BMP 8.1; 11.13; Kraeling 1953). The common denominator seems to be the presence of a garrison within protective walls. There could be space for the families of the soldiers who were assigned to the fort on site, but this was optional. In the case of Samaria and Jerusalem, there would have been administrative buildings, including storehouses, registry offices, and the governor’s complex as well within the walled complex, where official provincial business was recorded and transacted. It is likely that housing for scribes and other administrators were also present in these cases. As at Elephantine, it is probable that the birot of Samaria and Jerusalem contained a temple dedicated to the native deity for use by the local residents. Hanan Eshel has argued that Wadi Daliyeh papyrus 14 records the sale of a room within the temple in Samaria (1996). Such a layout for provincial seats indicates that within the Persian imperial administration, such complexes were intended to be military and administrative in function. Soldiers were maintained on site to be used as needed for local patrols and could be called up for duty farther afield if necessary. Administrators managed the flow of taxes paid in kind and in money, probably storing a great many within the walled settlement itself but also making sure that adequate supplies were available at other facilities throughout the province, as needed. They also made sure that tolls and taxes owed by traders were dutifully paid to the crown.
