Jump To:
The Demise of Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period
Judah/Yehud in the Persian Period
Tel Dan Stele
Found at the site of Tel Dan in Northern Israel in 1993, the stele is a late 9th-century inscription likely commissioned by Hazael (842-806 BCE) of Damascus to record his campaign victories. The inscription refers to Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the House of David (‘beit david’). While some have disputed the reading of the text and others have, justifiably, cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the evidence (Stavrakopoulou), the general scholarly consensus recognizes the veracity of this reference. Read the full text here.
Further Reading:
Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004: 86-88.
Shoshenq I Campaign
After unifying Egypt internally, Shoshenq I (943-923) was able to turn his attention to foreign policy, more specifically, control of trade routes. Near the end of his reign, he turned his attention to the Southern Levant in 925/926, making Megiddo the center of Egyptian political power of the region. The Egyptian record comes primarily from a relief on the Bubastide portal of the Temple of Karnak with a list of place names defeated (Jerusalem is not mentioned, likely because it was only a small, regional power). Although there are issues with the dating of this campaign, this historical parallel with the biblical account is the only extra-biblical chronological anchor for constructing the end of the united monarchy and beginning of the Judahite kingdom. In 1 Kgs 14:25-28 (cf. 2 Chr 12:1-12), the Egyptian ruler, identified as Shishak, came against Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam.
Further Reading:
Shortland, A.J. “Shishak, King of Egypt: The Challenges of Egyptian Calendrical Chronology.” Pages 43–54 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating : Archaeology, Text and Science. Edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2005.
Mesha’s Revolt
In the middle of the 9th century, the Moabites revolted under Mesha the Dibanite. There are two accounts of this rebellion. The biblical text records it in 2 Kgs during the reign of Joram of Israel. The Mesha Stele preserved the Moabite account and lists “the son of Omri”, possibly Ahab, as the king of Israel during the revolt. Joram, as a son of Ahab, could also be considered as son of Omri, so the Mesha Stele does not inherently contradict the biblical text. If Ahab had died in battle as is recorded in 1 Kgs 22, Mesha may have seen this moment as his time to revolt. Both the Mesha Stele and 2 Kgs 3 record that the revolt was successful. The biblical account lessens the blow of the defeat by saying the Israelites had trapped Mesha in his capital before being forced to retreat. The Mesha Stele possibly exaggerates, arguing that they slaughtered every Israelite in the towns they conquered. Most likely the historical reality lies somewhere in the middle. The result of Mesha’s Revolt was a new Moabite kingdom no longer a vassal to Israel.
Syro-Ephraimite War
The Syro-Ephraimite War lasted from 734-732 BCE and was fought between a coalition of Aram and Israel against Judah. It is recorded in 2 Kgs 16. The war began when Aram and Israel decided to break away from their Assyrian overlords. They attempted to convince Judah to join in their rebellion. When Judah refused, Aram and Israel attacked their southern neighbor. King Ahaz of Judah turned to Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria to intervene. The war resulted in Aram being absorbed into the Assyrian Empire and Pekah’s removal as king over Israel with Hoshea being installed in his place.
Siloam Tunnel Inscription
The Siloam Inscription was chiseled into the mid-way point of a tunnel discovered under the City of David in Jerusalem. According to 2 Kgs 20:20 (cf. 2 Chr 32:2-4) Hezekiah built a tunnel to prepare for an expected attack by the Assyrian King Sennacherib, which came in 701 BCE. The inscription recounts the moment when crews working from opposite ends met in the middle in completion of the tunnel. While there is no specific name or date mentioned in the inscription, the writing is dated to the late 8th, early 7th century. The parallels between the placement and details of the inscription with the biblical account of Hezekiah’s preparations lend credence to the historicity of the events and figures involved.
Further Reading:
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/siloam-inscription-and-hezekiahs-tunnel
Victor Sasson. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 114:2 (1982): 111-117
The Demise of Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period
While there are a number of sources that document the history of the Neo-Babylonian Period, including the Babylonian Chronicles, inscriptions relating to the reigns of kings, and documents from Egypt, there is very little documentation of the events surrounding Judah and its people during this period. There are no accounts of Babylonian activity in Judah, Samaria, or Transjordan from the timeframe when Babylon established its rule of the region. What little information we do have comes from the biblical material, which presents issues of inconsistent accounts and propagandistic purposes.
There is no extant information regarding what occurred in Judah during the first four years of Jehoiakim’s reign. Judah’s location in the southern Levant, put the small kingdom directly in the middle of the warring Babylonian and Egyptian empires and so it seems that the final few kings of Judah were caught up in the quickly shifting tide of political controls. Jehoiakim was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt in 609 BCE and it seems he remained a loyal vassal for several years due to Egyptian control over the southern Levant and its coastal roadway.
A great turning point occurred in 605 BCE when the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II clashed with the Egyptians at Carchemish, defeating them and breaking through to Syria. Destruction layers at sites such as Ashkelon (dated to 604 BCE) also demonstrate the shift in political power in the southern Levant. According to the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar spent nine of his first twelve years on the throne campaigning in the west against powers such as Hattu, Egypt, and Judah (Grayson, 100-102). In the midst of this demonstration of Babylonian power, Jehoiakim shifted alliance to Babylon. This shift likely occurred in the second half of 604 BCE, though scholars have also argued that it occurred later, in 603, or earlier, in 605. Neither of these latter two suggestions are sufficiently supported by evidence. Support for the dating of Judah’s submission to Babylonian domination in 604 may be found in 2 Kgs 24:1, “In his [Jehoiakim] days Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, marched forth and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years.”
After being loyal to Babylon for three years, Jehoiakim again switched Judah’s alliance to Egypt. Again, the exact date and circumstances of this shift is not directly recorded but the Babylonian Chronicles may provide information. The text records that Babylon’s control over the southern Levant was undermined after a failed invasion of Egypt in Kislev of Nebuchadnezzar’s fourth regnal year (Nov/Dec 601 BCE). Nebuchadnezzar was forced to retreat back to Babylon where he remained the entirety of the following year. The timing of this failed invasion aligns with the end of the three-year period of Babylonian vassalhood reported in the 2 Kgs 24 account. After this indecisive battle and the retreat of the Babylonian forces, Jehoiakim revoked the vassal treaty with Babylon in favor of an alliance with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt his forces and marched to Jerusalem in answer to this rebellion in 598/597 BCE. The Babylonian forces laid siege to Jerusalem in 597 BCE, though it only lasted a short time as Jehoiachin (who took the throne after the death of his father Jehoiakim) surrendered (2 Kgs 24:10-12). The Babylonian Chronicles also record this siege, stating that Nebuchadnezzar encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he captured the land and seized its king. A king of Nebuchadnezzar’s choosing was appointed and he took a great amount of tribute back into Babylon (Grayson 102; see the Chronicle Concerning the Early Years of Nebuchadnezzar II).
As punishment for Judah’s rebellion and alliance with Egypt, Jehoiachin was taken into exile, along with elite members of Judean society, servants, and many other Judeans (2 Kgs 24:12). The Weidner documents, which recorded ration lists, report that Jehoiachin and his sons were provided food rations and, in fact, Jehoiachin’s rations were much higher than that of normal citizens, conveying at least some sense of respect for his position.
Bibliography:
Arnold, Bill T. and Richard S. Hess. Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Arnold, Bill T. and Brent A. Strawn. The World Around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Grayson, Kirk A. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Greer, Jonathan S., John W. Hilber, and John H. Walkton. Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
McNutt, Paula. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Judah and the Exile
Events in Judah and in other areas where Judean citizens were exiled are difficult to reconstruct. The Hebrew Bible does not contain a single narrative dedicated to actual events of the exile and Babylonian sources are few. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar did not appoint another king but instead installed a governor, Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:22). Gedaliah’s administrative center was in Mizpah, due to Jerusalem’s destruction. Gedaliah’s term as governor was very brief, however, because a pro-Davidic rebel, Ishmael, assassinated him. Three bullae found (one provenanced and two unprovenanced) possibly refer to this same Gedaliah. The provenanced bulla, found in Lachish. names a Gedaliah as a “minister of the Royal House.” After the death of Gedaliah, we have no textual material to tell us who was appointed next.
While significant areas of Judah were destroyed, other locations show evidence of continued occupation and economic activity. In Ramat Rahel, archaeological evidence shows continued activity from late Iron II through the Babylonian period. Evidence also demonstrates that Ramat Rahel continued to function as an economic center for collection of tribute for the Babylonian Empire. A large quantity of stamped jar handles and seals from the area show a marked continuity have been found, showing that Ramat Rahel functioned as Judah’s principal fiscal center. (For more information about the Ramat Rahel material culture, see the following Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/jerusalem/lion-stamp-impressions-oFlek)
There is also evidence of Judean communities outside of the former land of Judah. The al-Yahudu documents seem to record the activities of an exiled Judean community in Babylonia. The name of the settlement, al-Yahudu (“town of the Judeans”) seems to follow the Babylonian practice of naming a settlement after the origins of its settlers. Additionally, many of the names included in the texts contain Yahwistic theophoric elements. The earliest texts within the collection date to regnal year thirty-three of Nebuchadnezzar, 572 BCE. The documents record economic details but therefore also provide names and genealogies spanning up to four generations.
Bibliography:
Arnold, Bill T. and Richard S. Hess. Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Arnold, Bill T. and Brent A. Strawn. The World Around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Greer, Jonathan S., John W. Hilber, and John H. Walkton. Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
McNutt, Paula. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Judah/Yehud in the Persian Period
We have very few sources available regarding the chronology of Judah and its people in the Persian period. In addition, what extant sources we do have are problematic. The accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah (EN) are generally not considered chronologically and historically reliable, even with the frequent use of various dating formulae.
In regard to when and how Jewish people returned to Judah in the Persian period, we have few details. The accounts in Ezra 1-6 are problematic. The return was likely more gradual than pictured in Ezra and probably involved smaller numbers of returnees. A temple was built, though likely taking rather longer than what is portrayed in Ezra 6:15. We cannot say when construction on the temple began. The tradition of Sheshbazzar in Ezra is downplayed, but the inclusion of such a tradition likely indicates that the beginning of the rebuilding of the temple began in the period before Darius, probably under Cyrus (Grabbe, 125). Neither can we say with certainty when the temple was finished—again, Ezra 6:15 is not reliable—but it was probably by the end of the sixth or beginning of the fifth century BCE. Therefore, the traditional dating of the completion of the temple to 516/515 BCE is not untenable. While the books of Ezra and Nehemiah purport to contain records relating to fifth-century Judah and earlier, there are a number of interpretive problems that we face in attempting to reconstruct events from these sources, perhaps most notably their clear propagandistic orientation.
Two major Judean figures from the Persian period and the era of restoration/ reconstruction are often the topic of historical dating issues. Ezra and Nehemiah are known from the biblical texts bearing their names and are reported to have been a high priest and a governor of Yehud respectively. There are many questions that arise surrounding these characters as historical figures. Were Ezra and Nehemiah indeed contemporaries? Were they both active during the reign of the same Artaxerxes? And, perhaps the most-discussed question, Did Ezra’s work indeed precede that of Nehemiah as the biblical narrative conveys? The date of Nehemiah’s mission is reported in his book as the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1). Most commentators now agree that this was most likely Artaxerxes I. The twentieth year of his reign would be 445 BCE. Nehemiah was appointed governor of Yehud and charged with restoring the city walls and gates and administrative structures. After twelve years of governing, the text reports that Nehemiah presented the report of his activities to Artaxerxes in Babylon in 433 (Neh 5:14, 13:6).
The date of Ezra’s mission is even more difficult to determine. As mentioned, in the biblical material, the figures of Ezra and Nehemiah are presented as contemporary. It is widely accepted in scholarship, however, that the story concerning Nehemiah was originally independent from that of Ezra. Both figures are said to have worked during the reign of an Artaxerxes: Ezra in the seventh year (Ezra 7:7) and Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Neh 1:1). However, it is certainly not established that they were active under the same Artaxerxes. While many commentators continue to follow the chronological presentation in the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah (so placing Ezra’s mission in 458 BCE), there are also many scholars who date Ezra after Nehemiah, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (398). I find Lemaire’s arguments in favor of the latter dating to be most convincing (Lemaire, 417-18; see also Japhet, 501).
While the Cyrus Cylinder is often cited as the spark for the exiled Judean community to return, it seems that the empirical policies under Darius (522-486 BCE) provided the environment for political and religious restoration to begin in earnest. According to the biblical traditions, Darius sent Zerubbabel to Judah to as act as governor of Jerusalem, accompanied by Joshua who was appointed as high priest (520 BCE). As far as dateable events and figures within the Yehud community in the Persian period, we do have a few sources. Elephantine papyri Cowley 30/31 and 32 record the name of “Bagavahya/Bagohi” as the governor of Yehud in around 407 BCE and perhaps at the beginning of the fourth century BCE. The same letter also mentions “Yehohanan and his colleagues who are in Jerusalem” (see more about the Elephantine papyri). Another governor of Judah, “Yehizqiyah the governor,” is known from Judean coins, but these are difficult to date precisely (ca. 380-332).
Bibliography:
Arnold, Bill T. and Richard S. Hess. Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Arnold, Bill T. and Brent A. Strawn. The World Around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Grabbe, Lester L. “‘They Shall Come Rejoicing to Zion’—or Did They? The Settlement of Yehud in the Early Persian Period.” Pages 116-127 in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Lester L. Grabbe with Deirdre Fulton. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.
Japhet, Sara. “Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 491-508 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Lipschits, Oded, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.