Journal articles on the topic 'Nehemiah (Governor of Judah)'

Hag/Zech 1–8 and Ezr/Neh have in common that they are often rated as primary sources when it comes to the development of Second Temple Judaism(s). Consequently, it is mostly assumed that the Persian governors of Judah (like the Persian kings) significantly contributed to the (re-)formation of the Jewish community in Jerusalem after the exile: Zerubbabel built the temple, Nehemiah the wall of Jerusalem. As a rule of thumb, literary analysis within these books, if applied at all, is less critical than elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. However, a literary critical approach gives rise to serious doubts about the historic reliability of these accounts. Based on a literary critical analysis of the relevant texts from Hag/Zech 1–8 and Neh, this article aims to show that it is only in the course of redaction history that the office of governor of Judah is ascribed to both individuals. Thus, the attribution of the office of governor to them reflects theological interests and concerns in the early Second Temple Period rather than the historical reality. As the texts not only attribute aspects of royal leadership to Zerubbabel and Nehemiah as governors of Judah, but also present the holders of a Persian office as custodians of Jewish interests (temple and Torah), it will be argued that the texts contribute to the political and religious reorganization of Judaism and, thus, to the formation of a collective Jewish identity.

AbstractEzra-Nehemiah is widely recognized as stressing the separation of Judeans repatriated from Babylonian exile from those they found living in and around Judah at their return. A related theme has received little attention, namely, the on-going relationship between the repatriates and their parent community in the Babylonian-Elamite diaspora. The present article highlights features of this relationship, noting that as a colony of the Babylonian exiles, the community of repatriates remained dependent on the diaspora for leadership and for instruction in religious culture and practice. It is suggested that in tandem with the emphasis on separatism, this view of diaspora-homeland relations reflects a concern current in the mid- to late-fourth century Judah to articulate a Judean identity that reinforced the connection of the Babylonian diaspora to the homeland. In its view of diaspora-homeland relations, Ezra-Nehemiah displays certain features in common with other late-Persian and Hellenistic biblical texts such as Esther and Daniel i-vi.

The article examines three Judean rituals described in Ezra-Nehemiah—the erection of the altar, the public reading of the Torah, and the inauguration of the Jerusalem wall—in the Neo-Babylonian–Persian context. It suggests that the Babylonian rituals observed throughout the Long Sixth Century shed light on, and constitute a relevant cultural context for consideration of these celebrations as described in Ezra-Nehemiah, which took place in Judah in the seventh month.

This article addresses the way the book of Ezra-Nehemiah on one hand and Chronicles on the other reflect the relationship between Samaria and Judah in the postexilic period. With regard to Ezra-Nehemiah, the focus is placed on Ezra 4:1–5, 6–23, 24, which evokes a particular image of the nature of the relationship between Samaria and Judah within the report of the construction of the temple in Ezra 1–6 that can function paradigmatically for the book as a whole. With regard to Chronicles, the focus lies on the theme of cult centralization, which became established in a particular manner through the reception of earlier tradition. The article concludes that both works, each in its own way, call forth critique of Samaria and the Samaritans in order to establish a separate Judean or Jewish group identity. The critique of the two works is dated to the late fourth or early third centuries BCE. As such, both are reckoned among the first witnesses heralding a shift in the perception of Samaria in biblical literature, namely toward a polemical and unequivocally negative perspective attested later in, for example, Josephus.

AbstractRecent studies have indicated the rhetorical purpose of Leviticus 1-16 as reification for the ritual authority of the Aaronide priesthood. In the present study, it is suggested that the literary shaping of these chapters was a response to external stimuli that threatened the priesthood. After weighing a variety of historical and socio-political contexts in which such a threat might have emerged, the tenure of Nehemiah as governor is considered as an example of the type of competing leadership typology that encroached upon the priesthood, and the rhetorical features of the Nehemiah Memoir are reconsidered in this light. The redaction of Leviticus 1-16 provides a sacral counter argument to administrative agents such as Nehemiah and his supporters, supporting an ideology where national survival was ensured not through interaction with Persia but through the integrity of Temple ritual entrusted solely to the Aaronide priests.

Zusammenfassung: Die Frage nach den exakten Bedeutungen der Begriffe החָפֶּ und אתָשָׁרְתִּ in Esra-Nehemia zog in der Vergangenheit beträchtliche Aufmerksamkeit auf sich. Indem die zwei Begriffe zumeist als Titel verstanden wurden, sind sie für die Frage entscheidend, wie die Texte von Esra-Nehemia die persische Administration der Provinz »jenseits des Flusses« beschreiben. Dieser Artikel untersucht die textkritischen und redaktionskritischen Fragen im masoretischen Text (MT) und in der Septuaginta (LXX) von Esra-Nehemia und wie Veränderungen gegenüber der Vorlage des MT die Stellung des »Gouverneurs« und — spezifischer — die Rolle Nehemias in den Texten modifizierte, die seinen Namen tragen.

The Chronistic History, consisting of I and II chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, constitutes a new history for the post-exilic Judaean community. These people faced new social and political relities and had to make sense of their history and situation. Central features of the Chronistic History are (in I and II Chronicles) the review of king David’s genealogies, the centrality of David’s reign and cultic arrangements, which resulted in Solomon’s building of the temple, and the history of the kingdom of Judah, with the reigns of Hesekiah and Josiah as focal points. In Ezra and Nehemiah the focal points are the Persian king Cyrus’ decree, allowing the Judaeans to return to Jerusalem, the conflict with the people of the land, and the rebuilding of the city walls and temple. The Chronicler’s use of history to constitute a new reality for its readers, helped them to visualise a new Judaean community by inclusion and exclusion. This process was not only healing and reconciliatory, but also entailed conflict and animosity.

Numerous scholars argue that the book of Ruth, with its story concerning mixed marriages of Judahites with Moabite women, consciously opposes the exclusivist rhetoric of the books of Ezra–Nehemiah. However, a detailed analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the book of Ruth, especially compared to the supersessive rhetoric of the roughly contemporary books of Samuel–Kings, reveals that the main purpose of the book of Ruth was to delegitimize the claims of the tribe of Ephraim to domination in Israel, and against this background to promote the tribe of Judah with its Davidic dynasty. Therefore, the book of Ruth most probably served as a rhetorical-ideological model for the much more elaborate, likewise consciously Judean narrative of the books of Samuel–Kings.

Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel are termed the “Matriarchs.” In contrast to these women, Bilhah, Zilpah, Tamar, and Aseneth/Asenath are the “Secondary Matriarchs.” They are “foreign wives.” Bilhah and Zilpah are Arameans and the mothers of the eponymous ancestors of the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Canaanite Tamar bears Judah’s son Perez, who becomes the link to the Judah tribal line. The Egyptian Aseneth, Joseph’s wife, bears the eponymous ancestors of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. The “foreignness” of these Secondary Matriarchs is not noteworthy in Genesis. Years later, however, Ezra/Nehemiah promote endogamy and reject foreign wives/exogamy. A similar pro-endogamy/anti-exogamy view is found in the Maccabean and Herodian times, although sometimes conversion – voluntary or forced – is another strategy. It is difficult to understand the growth of the Jewish people however defined or calculated – from the period of Ezra/Nehemiah to the destruction of the Second Temple – without these conversions. In the pseudepigraphic writings of the late and then postbiblical Second Temple period, as well as in rabbinic literature, the ethnic origins of the Secondary Matriarchs becomes an issue; consequently they become co-opted into the “Abrahamic” family – they are shown to be Jews. This article begins with a wide variety of examples in the Pseudepigrapha and rabbinic writings (Talmud, midrash) to address how the Secondary Matriarchs are understood to be ethnically “family” and not “foreigners.” It then analyzes the issue of endogamy/exogamy in Ezra/Nehemiah, as well as in the Maccabean-Herodian and rabbinic periods, as an explanation for the creation of the “additional biographies” of Bilhah, Zilpah, Tamar, and Aseneth.

Abstract This article aims at providing a brief overview of the historiographic writings on Achaemenid taxation, showing how the thesis of overtaxation influenced our understanding of Neh. 5 and Persian Yehud in the 5th century BCE. It describes how it was once widely accepted that overtaxation led to social and economic instability in many peripheral areas of the Achaemenid Empire, including Yehud. According to traditional scholarship, the narrative of Neh. 5 described how the local governor acted to mitigate this crisis by granting temporary tax and debt relief to small farmers. The author then moves to discuss how recent scholars questioned that long-established view, highlighting the biblical source’s rhetorical nature and the logical inconsistencies of the economic explanations used to describe this putative crisis. Finally, this article faces the question of a supposed economic calamity arising in Yehud under Persian hegemony and provides some clues to reevaluate the biblical narrative, particularly in light of recent studies concerning the Persian Empire’s economy and taxation. It supports to some extent the reading of Neh. 5 in an Achaemenid historical context.

Abstract According to popular scholarly consensus, the role of the classical prophets ceased following the rebuilding of Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. This paper will attempt to propose an explanation of 1 Maccabees’ comments about the cessation of prophecy by undertaking a careful and broad examination of the dynamics involved in the Hebrew Bible’s final chronological confrontation between a prophet and religious leader of Israel: Noadiah and Nehemiah. Attention will be given to exploring the basis for Nehemiah’s deliberate dismissal of prophecy and how his choices set a precedent for future leaders of Judah, culminating in the positions taken by the Hasmoneans. In conclusion, it will be argued that Nehemiah’s choice to elevate his own ability for insight above and against those who claimed a profession that typically was seen as granting exclusive access to such things, led to a gradual ostracization of prophets and a diminishing belief in their »trustworthiness«.

1–2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah express a different approach to the future of Israel to that provided in the Earlier Prophets. Firstly, the nature and the dating of this part of the Hebrew Bible are discussed, suggesting the end of the fifth and the very beginning of the fourth century B.C. as the time of its origins. Secondly, the retrospect of the past in 1–2 Chronicles is presented with a very specific attitude towards the Exile. The article focuses on the detailed analysis of Ezra 4:1–5, a passage representing the very core of this book. Against the backdrop of the identity of the deputation visiting Jerusalem as seen by the author of Ezra and the completely different self-presentation of the envoys from the north, the serious conflict that ensues is described. It bears analogies with the former antagonisms and tensions between the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel. On the basis of this conflict, a new reality emerges, namely Judaism. The religion of the preexilic Israel was profoundly transformed, having been exclusively limited to those Judeans who had come back from the Exile. As a result of this separation, the question of the “true Israel” became more crucial, setting new direction for the project of the national and religious identity of biblical Israel.

The article argues for the identification of three separate protagonists in the book of Nehemiah. The first is an unnamed wine steward who was appointed to rebuild Jerusalem’s city wall in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I. The second is a governor of Judah, who was appointed to that role in the same year. According to what may be his actual seal, however, this governor’s name is Yehoʿezer, not Nehemiah. A third protagonist was the head of the temple priesthood, but at the time of the temple’s dedication in 516, not during the reign of any Artaxerxes. Only he was called Nehemiah, however, his full name being Nehemiah Attršiātā ben Hacaliah.

Uzziah ruled in Judah for many years, yet the description of his rule in the book of Kings is laconic. The book of Chronicles, on the other hand, provides an extensive description of his reign that stems from authorial ideology, theology, and processes of identity formation. The book of Ezra-Nehemiah describes a series of confrontations from four directions, with Uzziah’s battles with the Philistines, the Arab tribes, and the Ammonites being three of these fronts. The Chronicler, writing several decades after Ezra-Nehemiah, was aware of the Ezra-Nehemiah text or its narrative, and developed the figure of Uzziah as a great king, thus serving his own national, economic, ethnic, and religious goals.

The exile of some Judeans under the Babylonian Empire from 597 to 582 BCE is perceived to have left the land of Judah without residents, according to some biblical passages. Historically and biblically, the land of Judah was not left empty, but some peasants remained behind when the important and legitimate elite was deported to Babylon. Some Judeans fled to Egypt and other neighbouring countries. Some of the elite were executed around 587–586 BCE. The legitimate monarchs of Judah were either murdered or deported to Babylon and Egypt. Gedaliah, of non-royal lineage, was appointed as a governor of Judah by Babylon, but he was assassinated. Subsequently, Judah was left without leadership or was probably incorporated into the Samaria provincial governance. The second rebellion of Zedekiah in 588 BCE resulted in the fall of Jerusalem (586 BCE), the capital city of Judah. The deported, murdered and dispersed elite left a legitimate leadership void, which translates into the exile of Judah. The cultic and civil services performed by the elite like festal ceremonies, daily sacrifices, trade, public administration, military and judiciary were halted by the Babylonian exile.Thus, Judah was exiled by Babylon at the termination of necessary services done in Jerusalem.Die leegheid van ballingskap en die vroeë Persiese periode: ‘n Historiese studie. Sommige Skrifgedeeltes dra daartoe by dat die indruk geskep word dat Juda sonder inwoners gelaat is na die ballingskap van die Judeërs in die tyd van die Neo-Babiloniese Ryk (597–582 v.C.). Histories beskou en op grond van inligting in die Ou Testament, was die land egter nie leeg nie. Sommige van die gewone mense het agtergebly toe die vernaamste mense en die leiers na Babel weggevoer is. Sommige Judeërs het na Egipte en ander lande gevlug. Sommige van hierdie vernames is in 587–586 v.C. tereggestel. Die wettige regeerders van Juda is óf tereggestel óf na Babilon en Egipte weggevoer. Gedalia, wat nie uit die koninklike geslag was nie, is as goewerneur aangestel, maar hy is vermoor. Gevolglik is Juda leierloos gelaat, of waarskynlik deur die Babiloniese owerheid by die Samaritaanse gebied ingelyf. Die tweede opstand van Sedekia in 588 v.C. het tot die val van Jerusalem, die hoofstad van Juda, in 586 v.C. gelei. Die verbanning en verstrooing van, asook die moord op die leiers en vernames het ’n leemte in regmatige leierskap gelaat wat Juda se ballingskap verklaar. Die kultiese en siviele dienste soos feestelike seremonies, daaglikse offers, handel en openbare administrasie wat deur die leiers verrig is sowel as die regstelsel en militêre eenheid is ook deur die Babiloniese ballingskap beëindig. Die ballingskap het dus eerder die beëindiging van noodsaaklike dienste geïmpliseer as die wegvoering van die totale bevolking .

The following books are reviewed: Heinrich Assell, Stefan Beyerle och Christfried Böttrich (red.), Beyond Biblical Theologies, (Hanna Stenström) Jean-Dominique Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (LarsOlov Eriksson) Brennan W. Breed, Nomadic Texts: A Theory of Biblical Reception History (Mikael Larsson) Walter Brueggemann och William H. Bellinger Jr, Psalms (David Willgren) Sean Burt, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformation of Genre in the Nehemiah Memoir (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Chrys C. Caragounis, New Testament Language and Exegesis: A Diachronic Approach (Dan Nässelqvist) Cavan W. Concannon, “When You Were Gentiles”: Specters ofEthnicity in Roman Corinth and Paul's Corinthian Correspondence (Adam Sabir) Ovidiu Creangă (red.), Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond (Mikael Larsson) Ovidiu Creangă och Peter-Ben Smit (red.), Biblical Masculinites Foregrounded (Mikael Larsson) Roland Deines, Acts of God in History: Studies Towards Recovering a Theological Historiography (Tobias Ålöw) Anders Ekenberg, Jonas Holmstrand och Mikael Winninge (red.), 2000 år med Paulus (Hans Leander) Magnus Evertsson, Liknelser och läsningar: Reception av liknelseberättelser ur Lukasevangeliet, kapitel 10–15, i predikoutkast för Svenska kyrkan 1985–2013 (Karl Olav Sandnes) Josef Forsling, Composite Artistry in Numbers: A Study in Biblical Narrative Conventions (Ola Wikander) Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi (eds.), Evil and the Devil (Torsten Löfstedt) Susan Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 and 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition (David Willgren) Raimo Hakola, Nina Nikki and Ulla Tervahauta (eds.), Others and the Construction of Early Christian Identities (Cecilia Wassén) Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas (eds.), The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretation in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Yulin Liu, Temple Purity in 1–2 Corinthians (Martin Wessbrandt) Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life (Carl Johan Berglund) Gerson Lameck Mgaya, Spiritual Gifts: A Sociorhetorical Interpretation of 1 Cor 12–14 (Mikael Tellbe) Takayoshi Oshima, Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Stanley E. Porter och Eckhard J. Schnabel (red.), On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (LarsOlov Eriksson) Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (Stefan Green) C. A. Strine, Sworn Enemies: The Divine Oath, the Book of Ezekiel, and the Polemic of Exile (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Michel Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew: On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism (Gunnar Haaland) Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Martin Wessbrandt) Georg A. Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews: Studies in their Textual and Contextual Background (Tommy Wasserman) Ellen White, Yahweh’ s Council: Its Structure and Membership (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Al Wolters, Zechariah (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) Lorne R. Zelyck, John among the Other Gospels: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels (Carl Johan Berglund)