Post-exilic Period Research Articles

The Contribution of Frank Moore Cross to Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

Frank Moore Cross was a transformational figure in Northwest Semitic epigraphy. His work on the Jewish Scripts of the post-exilic period, beginning in the 1950s with the Dead Sea Scrolls, is still the definitive palaeographic statement for the history and dating of Jewish Scripts of the period. His work on Northwest Semitic inscriptions had significant repercussions on the study of the chronology of ancient Judah, and moved that field forward in important ways. Cross was one of the seminal figures in epigraphy in the 20th century.

Scribe-Discourse on the Torah - Theology in the Postexilic Period -

Scribe-Discourse on the Torah - Theology in the Postexilic Period -

Using the Pe–Ayin Order of the Abecedaries of Ancient Israel to Date the Book of Psalms

Various abecedaries with the unusual order of the letter pe preceding the letter ayin have been discovered in ancient Israel. These abecedaries date from 1200–600 bce. The pe–ayin order was already known from the acrostics of Lamentations 2–4, and from the Septuagint text of the acrostic of Proverbs 31. Scholars have not appreciated the significance of the pe–ayin order as an aid to dating the Psalms. The acrostic of Psalm 34 makes much more sense under the assumption that the pe verse preceded the ayin verse, and it seems that all the acrostics in the first book of Psalms (9–10; 25; 34; and 37) originally reflected the pe–ayin order. The acrostics in the fifth book of Psalms (111; 112; 119; and 145) reflect the ayin–pe order, an order that seems only to have arisen in Israel in the post-exilic period. The differing orders in the first and fifth books help to confirm an early date for the first book and a late date for the fifth book.

PRAYER IN THE POST-EXILIC PROPHETIC BOOKS OF HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH AND MALACHI

Certain scholars (Johnson, Miller, Reventlow, Scharbert, Rhodes, et al.) declare that prayer, especially intercession, was an integral part of the prophets’ ministry. It is also significant that prayer was not neglected in the post-exilic literature of the Old Testament. Many of the longer prayers originated in the post-exilic period (Ezra 9; Neh 1; Neh 9; Dan 9; 1 Chr 29:10-19; etc.). The question posed by this article is: Does prayer play a prominent role in the ministries of the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi? One would expect a positive answer to this question. This article illustrates that there is no recorded prayer in these prophetic books and only a few indirect references to prayer (cf. Zech 7:2, 13; 8:20-23; 10:1, 6; 12:10; 13:9; 14:16-17; Mal 1:9). These passages do not refer to the prophet as petitioner, but to the interaction between YHWH and his people. Zechariah 7:13 even states that YHWH will not answer the prayers of his people. There may be different reasons for this scarcity of prayer references and the other post-exilic prophetic literature provides more questions than answers. We can probably say that prayer was not an integral part of the ministry of these post-exilic prophets, but that it was eclipsed by their proclamation of the word of God and their focus on the rebuilding of the temple and the post-exilic community.

Psalm 26 and Proverbs: Tracing wisdom themes

The discernment of Psalm 26 as a cultic psalm has prevented noticing vital connections with wisdom literature. These connections with Proverbs and other known wisdom psalms provide clues for the composition of Psalm 26 to be set in the post-exilic period. The way in which wisdom literature is used conveys the religious ethos and daily life of a community. The fact that the wisdom character of Psalm 26 has been overlooked can be viewed as one of the main reasons why Psalm 26 has been interpreted solely in a cultic setting. The sapiential influence of this psalm has been confused to only reflect the cultic aspects. The psalmist wants to live a life according to wisdom as he seeks the rewards of being close to Yahweh.

GUARDING THE MYSTERY AND MAJESTY OF GOD: REFLECTIONS ON THE HERMENEUTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SECOND COMMANDMENT

The early post-exilic period in Israel’s history saw a radical reinterpretation of Yahweh’s presence among his people. This re-orientation was prompted by the significantly changed socio-religious conditions during the Persian era. Yahwism had to be defined in the absence of the luxurious sanctuary of the monarchic era, as well as in the context of a diversity of religions. Within this context the radical shift which is witnessed in the second commandment took place. A movement away from cult images to the strong prohibition of images (aniconism) was concluded. This movement is a reflection of the hermeneutical altercation on the mystery and majesty of God. The present paper investigates the hermeneutical implications of the second commandment for reflecting on human dignity in an African context. An overview will be provided of the history of research on the second commandment and the religious-historical circumstances that prompted it. Thereafter, the results of the overview will be brought into interaction with one particular Africentric interpretation of the Second Commandment.

Moments of Millennium: Three Fictionalisations of Revelation 20 in Relation to Zoroastrian Eschatology

Abstract While the Millennium as described in Revelation 20 is the penultimate terminus in the premillennial dispensational end-time scheme, not much attention has been given by scholars or commentators to its precise nature. Scant mention is made of the nature of human life during this period. Claiming fidelity to absolute literalism, yet lavish in artistic license, three authors have recently plotted fictional accounts of what they imagine will happen after Christ returns to earth to reign for 1000 years. These novels are 1000. . .a Novel of the Millennium by Salem Kirban, Kingdom Come by LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins and Thunder in Paradise: Satan’s Last Storm by Jonathan Cash. This article seeks to draw out a correlation between these animated accounts and the text of Revelation 20, and in a step further, to examine their apparent resemblances to ancient Iranian texts in the post-exilic period.

Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 by Antonios Finitsis (review)

Reviewed by: Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 by Antonios Finitsis Richard J. Bautch Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6. By Antonios Finitsis. LSTS 79. Pp. x + 193. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Cloth, $110.00. There is copious evidence linking the book of Zechariah in its final form to the apocalyptic texts that came to the fore later in the Second Temple Period. The recently published Hazon Gabriel (Matthias Henze, ed., Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation [SBLEJL 29; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011]) is only the most recent in a line of Jewish apocalypses from the second and first centuries b.c.e. that owe a particular debt to Zechariah. While Zechariah’s association with later [End Page 428] apocalyptic literature has often driven the study of this biblical book, Antonios Finitsis argues for a different approach based upon the fifth-century social setting of Zechariah. He documents a complex of socio-historical developments associated with the early postexilic period, and he calls the sum of these developments “restoration eschatology” (p. 2). Restoration eschatology is the rubric under which Finitsis examines chapters 1–6 of Zechariah. This study is a version of Finitsis’ Ph. D. dissertation at the University of Chicago, directed by J. David Schloen. Schloen’s publications, which trace cultural developments such as patrimonialism in the Levant from the first millennium b.c.e. down to the Persian Period, reflect his acumen in this area, and his influence on the work of Finitsis is evident. This project benefited from the additional direction of John J. Collins and his expertise on the matter of apocalypticism. Chapter 1 establishes the book’s two foci, the sociological context of the prophet Zechariah in the late sixth century and the visionary expression that he uniquely employed. Chapters 2 and 3 deal with the history of scholarship. In the crucial chapter 4, Finitsis reconstructs the social setting of the early postexilic period, an effort that is discussed in more detail below. Chapter 5 involves a reading of Zechariah 1–6 that incorporates key passages from the book of Haggai. Chapter 6 branches into critical theory; the work of Michael Riffaterre informs an exploration of the prophet Zechariah as visionary medium. In the final chapter, Finitsis recapitulates his thesis that the author of Zechariah 1–6, or proto-Zechariah, crafted a message that promoted social harmony in the face of potential strife by inspiring the people of Judah and Jerusalem to restore their community after the exile. The crucial support for this thesis is chapter 4, the historical reconstruction of the world behind the text of Zechariah. In fact, this chapter is the crux of the monograph and deserves attention. Finitsis rightly states the question as follows: How did the Persian empire relate to its provinces such as Yehud, and vice-versa? His inquiry is structured along three lines: the Achaemenid dynasty’s propaganda directed at the provinces, the empires’s base of loyal elites who would enact Persian policy in provinces such as Yehud, and finally Persia’s dealings with local sanctuaries so as to generate revenue and support for the empire. All three discussions are substantive and focused, but they are not always cogent. The reconstruction that emerges is based largely on secondary sources, whereas primary sources better support these types of arguments. For example, there is a surfeit of documents on palace-temple relations in Babylonia, Egypt, and Asia Minor during the Achaemenid period, but this type of evidence is not introduced. Moreover, Finitsis relies on secondary sources that are slightly dated and so he is not always in step with contemporary scholarship. One example is his following Charles Carter’s conclusion that in the Persian I period of 539–450 b.c.e., [End Page 429] the population of the province of Yehud was 13,350 people (pp. 99–100). More recent scholarship has adjusted this figure upward, with Oded Lipschits in 2005 placing the number at 30,125 (The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005], p. 270). Finitsis includes Lipschits’s study in his bibliography but does not engage it...

Coexistence of Unconditionality and Conditionality of the Davidic Covenant in Chronicles

TheDavidic covenant is the basis of the hope for a restoration of theDavidic kingdom inChronicles. TheChronicler's retention of both the unconditionality and conditionality of theDavidic covenant does not mean that he was inconsistent; in my view, he views the two as complementary. The royal promise is conditional in the sense that theDavidic kings are disciplined and punished, and the kingdom ceases to exist when it does not meet the conditions set down byYHWH; it is unconditional in thatYHWH'swill never depart from the kingdom, as seen in 1Chron. 17:13 whereYHWHdistinguishes his promise toDavid from his promise toSaul. Following this line of thought, theChronicler yearns for further change in the postexilic temple‐centered society through a restoration of the lost kingdom by appealing to theDavidic covenant. The latter subtends the preservation of theDavidic kingdom in the preexilic period and a possible restoration in the postexilic period.

"4 Ezra" and "2 Baruch": Literary Composition and Oral Performance in First-Century Apocalyptic Literature

Students of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch have long noticed the numerous thematic, generic, and linguistic parallels that exist between them.1 Both texts were written in the late first or possibly the early second century c.e., most likely in the land of Israel. The composition of both works was triggered by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 c.e., as both texts are, in essence, elaborate responses to the host of challenges posed by the Roman aggression. Both stories are set fictitiously during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century b.c.e. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are Jewish apocalypses of the historical type, and both make exten sive use of the same set of literary genres, such as prophetic dialogue, prayer, pub lie speech, and the symbolic dream vision. Neither author reveals his identity but instead chooses to write pseudonymously in the voice of a biblical scribe of the exilic and early postexilic period: Ezra, who returned the Torah to Jerusalem, and Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah. What drives the momentum forward is a continu ous revelatory dialogue between the seer and God, or God's interpreting angel. By the end of each book both seers have undergone a remarkable transformation, from skeptic to consoler, ideal community leader, and latter-day Moses.

The Edomite Involvement in the Destruction of the First Temple: A Case of Stab-in-the-Back Tradition?

This article investigates the biblical tradition of the Edomite intervention in the fall and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 586 BCE. Close re-reading of the relevant biblical passages stripped of the ethnic prejudice against the Edomites demonstrates that the texts reproaching the Edomite behavior are not contemporary to the events they purport to describe, lacking important factual details and being full of theatrical imagery that is a product of their negative attitude towards Edom. I would suggest that the belief of the Edomites’ guilt represents an ancient case of ‘stab-in-the-back’ tradition, so typical of modern defeated societies. Contrary to traditional studies that failed to recognize that nations and national ideas were common in pre-modern times, a ‘perennialist’ perspective demonstrates that the 586 BCE catastrophe represented a major incentive for the burst of cultural nationalism and cultural creativity, but also of feelings of humiliation and embarrassment, xenophobia, ‘lost cause’ legends, ‘divine punishment’ themes and ‘stabin-the-back’ myths, that arose during the exilic and post-exilic periods.

Textual and Historical Notes on the Eliashib Archive from Arad

The first part of the article discusses in detail some letters addressed to eliashib, possibly the commander of the fortress of Arad. New readings and interpretations are suggested for Ostraca Nos. 3, 5, 10, 12 and 18 and their structure and contents are clarified. The second part of the article offers new solutions for some problems in the history of the Negev in the late years of the Kingdom of Judah. it suggests that the elite troops of Kittiyim were hired by one of the last kings of Judah and sent to the Negev in an effort to curtail the edomite danger. However, the efforts to defend the Negev failed and its centres were destroyed some time before the Babylonian 588–587 BCe campaign against the Kingdom of Judah. The heavy destruction brought about by the edomites was deeply engraved in the collective memory and provides the background for the distinctive negative attitude to edom in biblical prophecy of the exilic and post-exilic periods.

Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) In the Pentateuch, the contrast between legal or instructional material, on the one hand, and stories, on the other, is nowhere more stark than in the relationship between the story of the golden calf (Exodus 32-34) and the instructions and narratives (Exodus 25-31; 35-40) that surround it. The story tells of ritual failure with disastrous consequences, while the ritual instructions and narratives around it recount fulfilling those divine instructions to the letter. The contrast becomes most excruciating in each section's characterization of the high priest: the golden calf story seems to vilify Aaron by placing him at the center of the idolatrous event, while the ritual texts celebrate Aaron and his sons as divinely consecrated priests. Though source and redaction criticism have long since distinguished the authors of these accounts, the critics explain the intentions behind a literary juxtaposition that is too stark to be anything but intentional. Why did the Aaronide dynasties controlled both the Second Temple and its Torah allow this negative depiction of Aaron to stand? Over the last decade, increasing numbers of scholars have dated part or all of Exodus 32 to the postexilic period, which makes the problem of an anti-Aaronide polemic in an otherwise pro-Aaronide Pentateuch even harder to explain. Thus, both synchronic and diachronic approaches have trouble explaining the depiction of Aaron in this story. Rhetorical analysis of the possible function of Exodus 32 in the Penta teuch of the Second Temple period provides new answers to these questions. I. Exodus 32 in Historical Criticism By rhetorical analysis, I mean the study of persuasion.1 Who is trying to persuade whom of what by recounting this story in this context? Because of the negative depiction of Aaron, historical criticism has traditionally identified the who as anti-priestly/anti-Aaronide but pro-Levite groups in various historical time periods. This claim finds its basis in the contrast between Aaron creating the calf (32:3) and the Levites killing its worshipers, for which they are rewarded with ordination (32:26-29). Critics also consider Exodus 32 to be a projection of Judean polemics against the northern kingdom of Israel, because the calf is greeted with the call These are your gods, Israel, brought you out of the land of Egypt (32:4), which echoes the story of Jeroboam's golden calf in 1 Kgs 12:28.2 The appearance of both polemics together in this story has generated speculation about the Aaronides' priestly roles in the temples of the northern kingdom, especially at Bethel.3 Thus, the story is often used as a mine where interpreters dig for information about the historical development of Israel's priesthood as well as the politics of the two preexilic kingdoms. The Aaronides' prominence in postexilic politics draws my attention in this essay to the priesthood. Some have argued that the original story valued Aaron's bull/calf as a positive representation of YHWH. Only later editing turned it into a story of idolatry.4 Others argue that the references to Aaron, the Levites, or both were added to the original story in response to later conflicts between priesthoods.5 (Modern preachers have even picked up this theme to juxtapose Aaron to Moses as representing the church of the world versus the church of the Word.6) Much of the discussion that takes Exodus 32 as evidence for the history of the priesthood focuses on preexilic times. It ignores the literary context of the golden calf story within P's tabernacle traditions (Exodus 25-40).7 It is, however, this context and its likely historical origins in the Persian period that pose the greatest difficulties for understanding Exodus 32 as an anti-Aaronide polemic. How did the story survive Priestly editing in a period when avowedly Aaronide priests controlled not only the Jerusalem temple and its Torah, but increasingly also wielded political power as representatives of the Jewish people? …

The Meaning of the Chronicler's Genealogy in the Jewish Community for the postexilic period

The Meaning of the Chronicler's Genealogy in the Jewish Community for the postexilic period

Jewish royalty and priesthood in the early post-exilic period

Jewish royalty and priesthood in the early post-exilic period

Legalists, Visionaries, and New Names: Sectarianism and the Search for Apocalyptic Origins in Isaiah 56-66

This essay re-examines the difficult questions concerning the origins of apocalyptic literature and the rise of Jewish sectarianism. Since the publication of O. Plöger’s Theokratie und Eschatologie and P. Hanson’s The Dawn of Apocalyptic , the search for proto-apocalyptic origins in early post-exilic period sectarian conflict has generated a fair amount of debate. The most cogent and sustained response to Hanson’s and Plöger’s theories, S. Cook’s Prophecy & Apocalypticism (1995), attempted to purge the influence of “deprivation theory” from the field of biblical studies, and, more broadly, social anthropology. The present essay makes a fresh study of some central lines of thought in these works, especially as they relate to the issue of sectarianism and the social framework used for drawing exegetical conclusions. In particular, one prominent theory of the symbolic—in this case, textual—expression of sectarian groups, that of the anthropologist Mary Douglas, is applied to a series of enigmatic and highly debated texts in Trito-Isaiah in order to show the continued viability of the “sectarian” interpretation of these passages.

Augenzeugenschaft und Verfasserschaft des Mose als zwei hermeneutische Konzepte der Rezeption und Präsentation literarischer Traditionen beim Abschluss des Pentateuchs

In the final version of Deut the hermeneutical concept of Moses as an eyewitness, which legitimized the texts of Deut, has been replaced by the concept of Mosaic authorship. The presentation of an older aetiology (Deut 27) by the Priestly final version serves to replace Deut as the binding document by the entire Pentateuch and to integrate the older Deut as a part of the Pentateuch. This has been achieved by the fictional concept of Mosaic authorship (Deut 31). In the Sinai pericope there are some hints that this is not only a concept of Deut and its perspective but a comprehensive concept embracing the Pentateuch as a whole. It intends to integrate disparate traditions and at the same time to theologically delegitimate their older Vorlagen and sources in the postexilic period.

Priestly Power that Empowers: Michel Foucault, Middle-tier Levites, and the Sociology of “Popular Religious Groups” in Israel

The task of reconstructing the religious history of Israel can only be accomplished incrementally. Regarding methodology, if one chooses to engage the complexities of, say, the Israelite priesthood, synchronic analysis alone does not reveal its stages of development. Meticulous redactional analysis moreover exposes only aspects or phases of the sophisticated historiographies of the major writers in the preexilic, exilic, and postexilic periods and their grand schemas. One method of penetrating the pretense of uniformity is to approach the material through the use of analogy. Michel Foucault’s work on power and knowledge informs the present study, in particular his concept of the distribution of power by “specialists.” The Levites’ conflicted story needs no introduction, and its comprehensive transcription is not attempted here. Rather, drawing from biblical and wider ancient Near Eastern evidence, their activities as middle-tier “specialists” are outlined. The Levite in many instances locates professionally and socially between elite priests (living in larger cities) and populace (living in residential towns and villages). It is the itinerant, often times prophetically-infused Levite who, while maintaining the most contact with the general population, must at the same time maintain a viable connection with central authorities. Because his situation often necessitates collaboration with laity of dubious lineage, the Levite’s priestly power turns out to be one that empowers.

Blind People, Blind God. The Composition of Isaiah 29,15–24

This article argues that Isa 29,15–24 is composed of five coherent segments. The early Isaianic word, 29,15+21, was reinterpreted in a new way by an exilic author in 29,16–17+20. The presupposed blindness of Yhwh serving as a motivation for an ungodly life by those addressed in 29,15, is reconsidered as the ideology of desperate people who deem the blindness of Yhwh explains the present desolate condition of Jerusalem. The former injustice in Isaiah's society (29,21) is reinterpreted as the injustice of the foreign tyrant against the people of Yhwh. Isa 29,18+24 (the blindness of the people) and 29,19+23d–e (the oppressed Yhwh-fearing people) elaborate on the same theme in a larger context and presuppose a similar situation and author as implied by 29,16–17+21, probably to be identified with Deutero-Isaiah. A final expansion of the text reassessing the seeing of Jacob and the reverence of Yhwh by his descendants can be discerned in 29,22–23c, which probably comes from the post-exilic period.

Is There a Redactor in the House?: Two Views on Biblical Authorship

Is There a Redactor in the House? Two Views on Biblical Authorship William S. Morrow (bio) Raymond F. Person . The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature2. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Pp. x + 175. John Van Seters . A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 236. It is not long before a student introduced to the critical study of the Bible encounters the shadowy figure of the "redactor." Ubiquitous and anonymous, apparently the redactor is capable of everything from a small change in wording to the organization of whole books. The authors of both monographs reviewed here question common presuppositions about the activity of biblical redactors. The study of such literary activity is called "redaction criticism," although the connotations of the term "redaction" have changed over time. Originally, redaction referred to editorial processes related to preparing received texts for publication. As applied to the Pentateuch, for example, redaction criticism was once concerned with distinguishing the original documentary sources from editorial revisions that had combined them into their final form. Latterly, redaction has been used to indicate a wide range of revisional activities, in some cases virtually synonymous with authorship. 1If there is a common thread between the earlier meaning of the term and later developments, it consists in the belief that the result of redactional activity is the production of a particular text. Redaction criticism remains interested in discerning evidence that the text transmitted is a revision of an earlier document. [End Page 113] The works of Person and Van Seters raise significant questions about connections between authorship and redaction. In different ways, both challenge what they consider to be improper projections of modern practices onto ancient book-making. Person claims that the concept of authorship is actually unhelpful in describing the development of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). Van Seters denies the necessity of using redaction criticism to discern a history of composition in the law code found in Ex 20.23–23.33, the so-called Covenant Code (CC). In 1943, the German biblical scholar Martin Noth proposed that a single writer (to some extent relying on preexisting sources) composed a work of historiography comprising Joshua–2 Kings that was dependent on the theology and rhetoric of Deuteronomy: the DtrH. He believed the author of the DtrH produced this monumental opus in the exilic period of biblical history. Noth's own scholarship presupposed critical discussions about the composition of the books of Joshua–2 Kings that had taken place since the nineteenth century. At that time, scholars had already noted that the books of the former prophets showed significant use of phraseology and theology that resonated with the book of Deuteronomy. 2 Since Noth's time, the DtrH hypothesis has been subject to two significant modifications. Following the work of Harvard-based Frank Moore Cross, many scholars believe that a first edition (or block) was composed in the late preexilic period with a second completed during the exile. Another influential view, associated with Rudolf Smend of Göttingen, thinks that redaction criticism can expose three or more different layers (or strata) of the DtrH composed during the exilic and postexilic periods. The brief sketch above, of course, paints a picture of postwar scholarship with a very broad brush. In fact, intensive work on the DtrH in the last decade has raised searching questions about the validity of either the block model or the strata model. Some have even gone so far as to question the existence of the DtrH altogether. But, typically, the scholars concerned have used techniques of redaction criticism to obtain their results. 3 A major point of Person's book is to raise serious questions about the competence of redaction criticism to discern different versions of the [End Page 114]DtrH. Person eschews the common distinction between "deuteronomic" and "deuteronomistic" styles in favor of the adjective "deuteronomic." One reason for simplifying the terminology is that the distinction suggests a unitary movement of influence from Deuteronomy to the DtrH, when influences probably ran both ways (p. 6). Behind this judgment is also...