Judaism
Ezra and Nehemiah II.1
Abstract
© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Monday, February 26, 2001
Abstract
The Artaxerxes Letter
In 1944, Arvid Kapelrud stated, that “the rescript [of the framana of Artaxerxes] in its entire spirit and tone is Jewish and not Persian is agreed to by all”. It is not agreed today! Most English scholars accept it genuine as did Kellerman and Noth. The Jewishness of it might be the work of the editor casting it into a more understandable form, or an editor having to reconstruct a lost or largely damaged letter at a later time. There is not even any need to think that Artaxerxes wrote it. His chancellery officials will have done that and the king merely signed it. The officials might have couched the letter in suitable terms and shown familiarity with the procedures. The mention of the wrath of the Judaean god might have originally meant Ahuramazda, or been diplomatic or the addition of a Jewish editor.
H G M Williamson argues the letter’s use of Imperial Aramaic, its Persian loanwords, and the general agreement of its contents with known Achaemenid policy toward foreign peoples support its authenticity. Sara Japhet and Williamson have damaged the older scholarly consensus that the Chronicler was responsible for Ezra-Nehemiah, and particularly for the Ezra narrative. Williamson admits that the narrative has undergone editing, but its basis is a report that Ezra sent to the Persian court to describe his activity in Jerusalem.
Because most scholars accept the letter of Artaxerxes as authentic, they view Ezra’s work as a “mission”, actions given validation by a royal decree (Persian framana). From this point of view Artaxerxes sent Ezra to Yehud, to reform the temple cult. Artaxerxes may have been concerned about the stability of a region close to Egypt, an unstable and rebellious satrapy, and may have wanted Ezra to impose order in Yehud. By working for social cohesion in Jerusalem and Yehud, Ezra ensured that the province remained docile and accommodating to Persian rule.
Ezra’s journey might have been Artaxerxes’ or a Chancellery idea and there was no original request on the part of the Judaean. It was a standard Persian courtesy to quote relevant bits of any original letter. Here there is no such citation but the letter writer has detailed knowledge of aspects of the Jerusalem cultus. The Palestinian vocabulary in the letter would be understandable if the letter’s author were quoting an original appeal from Judaeans. If there was an original letter, then it has been modified. Perhaps a request was sent to Artaxerxes from the Jewish community and the monarch composed a letter granting the petition that quoted the original piece of correspondence in the manner in which we would expect. Later on, this letter was edited in such a way thet the original petition was incorporated, and the whole inserted into its present position in the Ezra narrative.
Jedaniah of the settlement at Elephantine appealed to Palestine in 408 BC for permission to rebuild Yehouah’s temple of Yeb destroyed in 411 BC. Replies came from Bagoas (Bagayavahu), governor of Yehud, and from Dalaiah (Deliyeh), son of Sanballat of Samaria. Both were couched in ways that the sound like the attempt in Ezra 7 to copy a framana of the Persian king. Both are memoranda concerning the cult of the “God of Heaven”, that begin with an apparent repetition, and both stipulate the temple had to be built “in its place”. It all suggests that this royal letter in Ezra has some historical basis.
The letter seems to quote an earlier bit of correspondence, albeit not one from Ezra or his colleagues. In Ezra 7:21-24, Artaxerxes apparently quotes a letter that he has sent to his treasurers, informing them that they are to supply the Jerusalem temple with provisions. Otherwise there is no reference back to an earlier letter or request. Every known piece of administrative correspondence sent in reply to an earlier query quotes from it. Their absence here makes Ezra’s journey and all of the letter’s particular references to the cult in Jerusalem entirely the initiative of Artaxerxes.
Even if the letter is edited, does Ezra 7:12-26 contain what actually happened? Was Ezra originally commissioned by the Persian king to conduct vessels and money to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:15-16)? Was he really given the authority to appoint officials in Abarnahara to adjudicate on the basis of “the law of your God and the law of the king” (Ezra 7:25)? Did the king really instruct his treasurers to supply the Jerusalem temple with provisions (Ezra 7:21-23)? Did he really order them to exempt the temple clergy from taxes (Ezra 7:24)?
The letter as we have it makes Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem and the gifts to the temple there from the royal court appear not as Ezra’s initial suggestion to the king but simply as unprompted royal beneficence. A reader of Ezra-Nehemiah may be meant to assume that this continues the book’s equation of the royal and divine wills. The decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra addresses two main issues:
- the donation of money and goods from the crown and other sources to the Jerusalem cult, Ezra 7:15-24
- Ezra’s own appointment as some sort of official whom the king has assigned “to seek out concerning Yehud and Jerusalem by the law of your God”. Ezra 7:14, 25-26
Ezra had authority over all the Jews of Abarnahara, to judge with severe penalties including death. He had authority therefore over the satrap himself in these matters. It seems that after a hundred years the different colonists had not yet settled the new religion on the region. Ezra was provided with apparently huge resources (though doubtless exaggerated as propaganda) to settle it for good.
Ezra is portrayed as more than just a royal lackey. He is portrayed as a trusted servant of the king. Sara Japhet thinks the editor of Ezra 1-6 indeed equated the will of the Persian king with the will of God. Ezra 7:27-28 has the same attitude. Ezra is told at the beginning of the letter that an order has gone out that he is “to inquire about Yehud and Jerusalem with the law of your God that is in your hand” (Ezra 7:14). Ezra 7:15-24 then discusses financial issues, and the thread of Ezra’s inquiry resumes in the last two verses of the letter. He is to appoint judges and magistrates “who are to adjudicate for all the people who are in Abarnahara, for all who know the laws of your God; and whoever does not know (them) you will teach”. The letter says that Ezra is to appoint these officials “for all the people who are in Abarnahara” (Ezra 7:25). All the people in Abarnahara were to be subject to the law of the God of heaven. Finally, the letter concludes, “all who do not do the law of your God and the law of the king” will be subject to punishment. The Persian shahanshah in practice was God. That is why the shah wanted to apply the law of Ezra’s God to all of Abarnahara.
The appointing of legal officials in Abarnahara and teaching the law were the duties Ezra had, but the rest of the Ezra narrative records Ezra performing only the latter action. Appointment of officials of the law of God in other nations of Abarnahara can have been of no interest to the later Jewish editors, and have been omitted. Ezra teaches the law to the Jewish community in Nehemiah 8. The letter gives Ezra sweeping powers to enforce the law, but the community volunteers their infraction in the case of the divorce of the foreign women in Ezra 9-10, even though Ezra then acts strongly. There is no doubt of Ezra’s huge authority, but he exerts it through diplomacy and moral pressure.
Was the Persian government in the habit of sending out representatives to establish local and royal law codes? Blenkinsopp claims that Ezra was sent by Artaxerxes I in 458 because Artaxerxes, like Darius, was intent on reorganizing his empire and instituting legal reforms. Janzen says there are two major difficulties with the parallel between Udjahorresnet and Ezra that Blenkinsopp attempts to draw:
- there is no good indication that Udjahorresnet carried out any legal reforms in Egypt by means of royal fiat;
- there is no indication that Artaxerxes I initiated any sweeping legal reforms within his empire as Blenkinsopp claims.
If Artaxerxes had actually begun such reforms, they would be the historical background for Ezra’s work. This objection needs revising if the emperor were Darius II, not Artaxerxes. Darius was half Babylonian and made significant changes in emphasizing Babylonian culture.
Ezra set off, again on the first day of the year, and arrived four months later exactly. Ezra picks up a fresh batch of colonists, evidently priests but not Levites at Casiphia by the river Ahava. There were no Levites because the caste of Levites only arose after the Persians had set up the temple. An editor thought the absence of any reference to Levites strange and has added an explanation. The confusion is like that of much of the scriptures—multiple redaction—anachronistic mentions of Levites have later been added.
Casiphia must be Ctesiphon and the river must be the Euphrates, or a nearby tributary. Who were these priests that were not Levites, and therefore apparently unsuitable? Yet others called Nethinim were found and were considered suitable. These Nethinim served the role for Ezra of priests and were admitted into the priestly caste being allowed to marry with them. It looks very much as though Ezra is using his authority to create a class of reliable people whom he would use to impose order on to the unreliable earlier colonists of Yehud.
Financial Matters!
The Persians were less generous than the Neo-Babylonian kings in financial policy toward temples. The Persians incorporated some of the established temples into the government-regulated system of land tenure. At Ur, the vast temple lands and holdings belonging to the god Sin were overseen by the same government officials who administered government land and waterways.
Some texts refer to the temple lands both as belonging to Sin and as “bow land”, a kind of fief distributed by the crown to vassals who were obligated to perform military service and pay taxes in exchange for the land. Other texts note that holders of temple land are charged the same kind of tax that was paid to the crown on the royal fiefs. So, some of the temples were integrated into the network of tax-gathering organizations. The temples were also obliged to make payments for public works.
In Egypt, Cambyses put an end to the royal donation of provisions to the temples there, allowing only three to continue to receive produce from the government, and even in those cases he drastically cut their income from the crown. Yet the Persians were also well aware of the importance of courting regional religious sensibilities to keep the peace in their vast empire.
Cambyses agreed to Udjahorresnet’s proposal and restored the cult, priests, and festivals of the temple of Neith at Sais, according to Blenkinsopp. Udjahorresnet also says that Cambyses came to Sais to prostrate himself before the goddess. In fact, one of Cambyses’ seals from Egypt was designed in traditional Egyptian style and claimed that he was the “beloved of Wadjet”, the goddess. In Egyptian reliefs he is pictured in local dress, kneeling before the gods.
The Babylonian Chronicles also suggest that Cambyses worshipped before Marduk at Esagil. Diodorus claims that because of Darius’s close association with the priests of Egypt and his study of their theology, he was addressed as a god by the Egyptians during his lifetime. There is political sense in a king presenting himself as a devotee of a god or goddess of a conquered region, since such actions are likely to garner support for the empire or at least reduce local animosity toward the ruling power.
The Persians would also cut off royal donations to temples and increase their payments to the administrative coffers, but a king could have authorized a donation to a particular cult, as we find in Artaxerxes’ letter in Ezra 7:15, 21-23. Udjahorresnet reports that Darius restored the various temple guilds at Sais, and “had commanded to give them every good thing”, presumably a royal donation to re-establish what had been destroyed in the earlier revolts in Egypt against Persian power. Artaxerxes evidently made a similar contribution to Jerusalem as a gesture of goodwill.
The list of provisions in Ezra 7:22 donated to the temple is presented just as Persian lists of the period were presented. The item is listed, then the unit of measurement, then the number of units to be provided. Provisions are listed in this way in a letter from Arsames regarding rations to be given to one of his officials travelling from Babylon to Egypt, as well as many ostraca from southern Palestine regarding items from royal stores. Artaxerxes’ claim to his treasurers in Ezra 7:23 that he wishes through these donations to avoid the wrath of the God of Heaven, though always assumed to be the Judaean god, could have meant his own God Ahuramazda who wore the heavens as his “massy cloke”.
As for the text’s claim that the king authorized his treasurers not to tax the clergy of the temple (Ezra 7:24), a parallel exists in the Gadatas letter, a Greek inscription from the second century AD that presents itself as a copy of a letter sent from Darius to an official by the name of Gadatas in the Ionian province of Magnesia. In it, Darius warns Gadatas to cease taxing the sacred gardeners of Apollo. This is the only document besides the Artaxerxes letter of Ezra that witnesses to a Persian-period clergy with a tax-exempt status, and, as with the letter in Ezra, the authenticity and historical reliability of the Gadatas letter are disputed. Some think it was an opportunistic late forgery but J Wiesehöfer (1987) thinks the author has enough knowledge of administrative practices of the Persian period. The inscription also introduces matters that have nothing to do with the cult at Magnesia, an unlikely dilution if the inscription was composed long after the Persian period merely to support the clergy’s wish for tax-free status.
When a new temple was established in the Persian province of Lycia, a province of Anatolia, in the fourth century BC, the priest received immunity from local taxes but not from those of the central Persian authority. The establishment of this cult is recorded on the Letoon trilingual stele, found in 1973 in a shrine to the goddess Leto in the Xanthos valley. It states that Artaxerxes—probably Artaxerxes III (Ochus) but possibly his son, Arses—had issued a decree in his first year (therefore likely to have been 358 BC, possibly 337 BC) founding a cult to the Carian gods and its laws. The stele makes out that the king had responded to a request of the local people to recognize the cult. Pixodatus was the Carian satrap of Lycia, so his role was akin to that of Nehemiah, according to the Jewish scriptures. Nehemiah is a Jew who is also governor of Yehud, and petitions the shah to assist the Jews. Pixodatus does the same for the Carians, though he presented his petition at the request of the people, not merely on their behalf. The Xanthos decree gave complete freedom from taxation to the priests and the sanctuary. There must have been a quid pro quo.
The Greek and Lycian versions on the stele end with an appeal for the satrap to recognize this new cult, while the Aramaic ends with the Persian satrap’s response. The Aramaic (Persian) part of the text explains that the provisioning of the temple would be used for raising taxes, and Pixodatus would administer it. The priests too would have to maintain the laws of the cult god. Whereas the Greek has “May Pixodoros establish (the cult) as lawful”, the Aramaic version ends with “He [Pixodatus] wrote this law for enforcement”. The three versions, but especially the Greek and Aramaic, parallel each other closely. A Dupont-Sommer thinks the Greek and Lycian were the original appeal to the Persian authorities for the establishment of the cult, and the Aramaic version was the positive response to the appeal from Pixodatus. The Aramaic has quoted the Greek verbatim, just as the Persians habitually did. The Greek version states that the cities establishing the cult “gave to them [the priests] immunity [of taxes] of goods”. Yet the Aramaic, which follows the Greek so scrupulously, omits this entirely. The satrap did not want the clergy to believe that the Persian government would exempt priests utterly from taxes. They had a concession from city taxes but would be raising them for the imperium.
The biblical account continues at Nehemiah 7:70, where large amounts of money were collected from people as offerings. Gilbert J P McEwan, (Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon 1981) shows that in Babylonia, the larger temples at least were involved in tax collection and government land ownership. Large temples owned large amounts of land and other holdings that they would rent out. The Eanna shrine at Uruk owned 150 storage facilities, large plots of land and farms. The temple had a governing board that would oversee the holdings. It received rent, tithes, and offerings as income and paid out salaries through its various prebends, which included members of the priesthood but also many different groups of artisans. Lower levels of temple personnel simply received rations. All temple holdings were considered to be the property of the god, and so temple property at Uruk was called “the property of Anu”.
While some of the land remained under direct control of the temple administration, other parts were leased out. The prebendary rights were as much temple property as the land and so were the temple slaves. Administrative policy concerning temple function, personnel, fines, assigning vacant temple land, and so on was made by the “puhru” as a whole, which was presided over by the chief administrative officer, the “shatammu”. The assembly included the cultic professionals among its members, and membership within the assembly qualified one for membership in the city. The assembly would even consider such matters as marriages, petitions, and grievance. At Uruk, the prebendary system was controlled by the “bit abim” (“houses of the fathers”, priestly castes or clans). All the higher civil and temple officials were members of one of the temple clans, and assembly membership was likely restricted to those who were clan members, although it is possible that the clan system was not introduced until the Hellenistic period.
Throughout the Persian period, established Babylonian temples existed not just as cult centers but “as social units with dependent populations and extensive administrative staffs, as economic units with widespread real property, diverse sources of income and facilities for accumulating and redistributing their wealth”, according to M Stolper. In this social setting the “shatammu” as chief administrator of the temple did not act by himself but always within the context of the head of the assembly. It is all remarkably Jewish.
In Neo-Babylonian texts from the Ebabbar shrine at Sippar, the temple administrator appears in connexion with the questioning of assembly members involved in lawsuits, and in some texts appears even with royal judges. At Sippar he was involved not only with managing matters such as land, cattle, and temple personnel, but also acted as judge in a few cases dealing strictly with matters internal to the temple assembly. As an administrator, then, a “shatammu” could not force an assembly to act but could only lead it as it made its decisions. Insofar as such an administrator could apparently act as a judge, his authority was limited to matters within the world of the assembly.
Scribes appear within the Babylonian temple assemblies, both the “sepiru”, the Aramaic scribe who wrote on parchment, and the “tupsharru”, the cuneiform scribe who wrote on clay. The “tupsharru” was considered a priest, while the “sepiru” was considered an administrator. So beyond referring to members of the Persian bureaucracy, the term “scribe” could also refer to functionaries within the temple organizations, and in Babylon to people who were considered both priests and administrators. Janzen tries to maintain that Ezra was simply a temple scribe, a “tupsharru”, but that is untenable unless Ezra-Nehemiah is abandoned as a pointless work.
The actions that Ezra performs in the Ezra narrative have contemporary parallels. Joel Weinberg has given convincing parallels between the Jerusalem temple community and those of Babylonia, between the Babylonian “puhru” and the “qahal” of Ezra-Nehemiah. Both terms refer to a temple assembly, and the “qahal” of Persian-period Yehud appears to have functioned much like its Babylonian counterpart. The Jerusalem temple assembly was structured by the caste of priestly families that were the equivalent of the Babylonian “bit abim”.
Ezra acts like a “shatammu”, an administrator who can guide the assembly but who cannot mandate decisions, yet the Artaxerxes letter gave him that authority. Janzen thinks Ezra was just the head of the assembly and declares the letter spurious denying that Ezra had the authority to legislate a decision in the way that Nehemiah did. In Nehemiah 5, the poor complain about the burden of taxes, and the governor handles it. This, though, was a matter beyond the bounds of the assembly. Ezra was not sent to replace the governor, although as a more senior official, he had more power. The governor still acted as governor, and had to shift the attention away from the royal taxes that had caused the problem.
Janzen says Nehemiah can act in a way that Ezra cannot, an obviously unwarranted assumption that he has to deny the shah’s letter to uphold. Janzen goes on to say that Ezra had no power to act outside of the assembly, because he did not use it, but a senior statesman and diplomat would have sought to lead rather than drive, especially in delicate matters, and especially because that was how the leading priests, the “shatammu”, in fact, behaved. When, in Ezra 9-10, he works within the assembly on a matter wholly internal to it, he works as “shatammu”, not as royal official because it is more effective, but there is no doubt in the whole work that the assembly knew who had the power. Ezra’s authority shines through.
