One does need to do a little archaeological detective work. The Assyrians deported some 20,000 people from "Israel" (somewhere between 10-15% of the population...so much for the "Ten Lost Tribes" horseshit so we do have an indication that there was a history of that kind of thing.
Second, the Babylonian chronicles report that they attacked the city and carried off "tribute" without specifying what that tribute might have been but again, as with the Assyrians - and Babylon was a rebellious province of the Assyrian empire - it is not unreasonable to think that the ruling classes would have been relocated.
Third, we have archaeological findings of Judahite families prospering in the Babylonian Empire before the Persians arrived.
Fourth, we have the decree of Cyrus the Great indicating that captive nations of the Babylonians - the Judahites were not unique - were to be permitted to return.
Fifth, we have archaeological evidence that consistent with the beginning of the Persian period - c 539 BC - a small scale settlement resumed on the site of Jerusalem. Bible horseshit aside, Israel Finkelstein cites the build up area as capable of supporting a population of 400. (The Babylonians had not reused the site which they destroyed instead settling their the governor at nearby Mizpah.)
Davies point is that a small band of people was sent back to rule the region, renamed Yehud from where we get the name Jews, and that the whole priest-class prophet of god shit was to give them a rationale to rule for the Persians. Cyrus himself had bigger fish to fry and was in fact killed in battle putting down a revolt in the eastern part of his empire.
To paraphrase Davies....crudely which is what I do best.... Cyrus wanted to avoid a situation where his designated rulers went back and the inhabitants said "who the fuck are you?" So they came complete with this silly doctrine about how they were the rightful rulers who had been promised the land by "god" and were being returned by the great Cyrus to resume their destiny. One imagines that the peasants who had been working for the Babylonian overseers would not really have given two shits about which hand held the whip but might respond better to the illusion of having their own "lost" rulers being restored to them.
Oh, and they brought a whole new god who, as Davies also points out, would have been fairly indistinguishable from the Persian's Ahura Mazada...always a good way to get on the king's good side.
Second, the Babylonian chronicles report that they attacked the city and carried off "tribute" without specifying what that tribute might have been but again, as with the Assyrians - and Babylon was a rebellious province of the Assyrian empire - it is not unreasonable to think that the ruling classes would have been relocated.
Third, we have archaeological findings of Judahite families prospering in the Babylonian Empire before the Persians arrived.
Fourth, we have the decree of Cyrus the Great indicating that captive nations of the Babylonians - the Judahites were not unique - were to be permitted to return.
Fifth, we have archaeological evidence that consistent with the beginning of the Persian period - c 539 BC - a small scale settlement resumed on the site of Jerusalem. Bible horseshit aside, Israel Finkelstein cites the build up area as capable of supporting a population of 400. (The Babylonians had not reused the site which they destroyed instead settling their the governor at nearby Mizpah.)
Davies point is that a small band of people was sent back to rule the region, renamed Yehud from where we get the name Jews, and that the whole priest-class prophet of god shit was to give them a rationale to rule for the Persians. Cyrus himself had bigger fish to fry and was in fact killed in battle putting down a revolt in the eastern part of his empire.
To paraphrase Davies....crudely which is what I do best.... Cyrus wanted to avoid a situation where his designated rulers went back and the inhabitants said "who the fuck are you?" So they came complete with this silly doctrine about how they were the rightful rulers who had been promised the land by "god" and were being returned by the great Cyrus to resume their destiny. One imagines that the peasants who had been working for the Babylonian overseers would not really have given two shits about which hand held the whip but might respond better to the illusion of having their own "lost" rulers being restored to them.
Oh, and they brought a whole new god who, as Davies also points out, would have been fairly indistinguishable from the Persian's Ahura Mazada...always a good way to get on the king's good side.
