How does the Deuteronomists’ account square with the archaeological evidence?
Archaeology offers a picture of the Persian post-Exilic period Judah that does not sit easily with the story the Bible tells. There is no archaeological evidence for a sudden influx of new settlers from the Babylonian region in the area of Palestine and Yehud at the beginning of Cyrus’ reign[1]. This lack of evidence for a substantial influx of population in the early part pf the Persian period has led archaeologists such as Lipschits to claim that the number of new immigrants was negligible, suggesting that on the ground evidence for the theory of the return may be weak. Cyrus did issue a decree allowing all displaced peoples, not just the Jews, to return to their respective homelands, but when this occurred is problematic, and the Biblical texts of Ezra and Zechariah are far from reliable. Then there is the problem of dating! Rather than the late sixth century, a date which most scholars support, Diana Edelman (2005) has argued a date for the return in the mid-fifth century, some 150 years later[2]. Zechariah says that the Jews were in exile for 70 years, perhaps a round number, but it hardly supports a date closer to 150 years.
The Temple was already in existence when Nehemiah returned, and on his own account it is clear that Judah and Jerusalem were already inhabited and there is nothing to suggest a new settlement or the rebuilding of the Temple in his own time[3] In fact, some of the inhabitants could have been descendants of those who were taken captive, and the priests, Levites and Temple servants mentioned in Nehemiah are likely to be descendants of those who returned from Babylonia.
When it comes to when and how the Jews returned to Judah in the Persian period, we have few details, and passages such as Ezra 1-6 which speak of this are problematic. Certainly some Jews returned, but the return was probably more gradual than that portrayed in Ezra and also probably involved smaller numbers[4]. But even though the evidence for the Persian-period origin of the Hebrew Bible is circumstantial and controversial, the general viewpoint is that the Persian period was formative for the Hebrew Bible persists. At the moment (2011), the question of what the term “Israel” actually meant and what constituted Israel in the Persian period remains a work in progress, because in the creation of Israel there was more than one voice and many Judaisms - those who spoke through Deuteronomy and those speaking via Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel - but the general consensus among contemporary Biblical scholars is that these times of trauma were of critical significance in, and in fact formed the catalyst for, the creation of the Hebrew Bible[5].
[1] Lester L Grabbe “They shall come rejoicing to Zion” – or did they? The settlement of Yehud in the early Persian period”, Chapter 6 of Exile and Restoration Revisited – essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods of Peter R. Ackroyd, Ed by Gary N. Knoppers and Lester L Grabbe, with Deirdre N. Fulton, T and T Clark, 2009, 117
[2] Ibid, 116
[3] Ibid, 121-2.
[4] Ibid, 124-5.
[5] For a comprehensive analysis of the historiography concerning the significance of the Exile as regards the composition of the Hebrew Bible, see Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E Kelle Biblical History and Israel’s Past- The Changing Study of the Bible and History, William B. Eerdmanns Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK,2011, pp 451-457.
The Temple was already in existence when Nehemiah returned, and on his own account it is clear that Judah and Jerusalem were already inhabited and there is nothing to suggest a new settlement or the rebuilding of the Temple in his own time[3] In fact, some of the inhabitants could have been descendants of those who were taken captive, and the priests, Levites and Temple servants mentioned in Nehemiah are likely to be descendants of those who returned from Babylonia.
When it comes to when and how the Jews returned to Judah in the Persian period, we have few details, and passages such as Ezra 1-6 which speak of this are problematic. Certainly some Jews returned, but the return was probably more gradual than that portrayed in Ezra and also probably involved smaller numbers[4]. But even though the evidence for the Persian-period origin of the Hebrew Bible is circumstantial and controversial, the general viewpoint is that the Persian period was formative for the Hebrew Bible persists. At the moment (2011), the question of what the term “Israel” actually meant and what constituted Israel in the Persian period remains a work in progress, because in the creation of Israel there was more than one voice and many Judaisms - those who spoke through Deuteronomy and those speaking via Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezekiel - but the general consensus among contemporary Biblical scholars is that these times of trauma were of critical significance in, and in fact formed the catalyst for, the creation of the Hebrew Bible[5].
[1] Lester L Grabbe “They shall come rejoicing to Zion” – or did they? The settlement of Yehud in the early Persian period”, Chapter 6 of Exile and Restoration Revisited – essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods of Peter R. Ackroyd, Ed by Gary N. Knoppers and Lester L Grabbe, with Deirdre N. Fulton, T and T Clark, 2009, 117
[2] Ibid, 116
[3] Ibid, 121-2.
[4] Ibid, 124-5.
[5] For a comprehensive analysis of the historiography concerning the significance of the Exile as regards the composition of the Hebrew Bible, see Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E Kelle Biblical History and Israel’s Past- The Changing Study of the Bible and History, William B. Eerdmanns Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK,2011, pp 451-457.