Ezra-Nehemiah

[Justtristo]

Recently I had the chance to re-read both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah from the Old Testament. Also I tried to match the Persian kings mentioned in both books with kings of the Achaemenid Empire.

According to the book of Ezra Cyrus the Great (c.550-530 BCE) supposedly made a decree to allow the Jews to go back to Judea and "rebuild" the temple. So they returned back to Judea and tried to rebuilt the temple. However the "Adversaries" opposed this "rebuilding" of the temple through Cyrus the Great's reign through to the reign of Darius I? (521-486 BCE) (521-486). The interesting thing is that King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I? 485-465 BCE) puts a stop to the "rebuilding" of the temple.

If I am right in my reading it was not until the reign of Darius II (423-405 BCE) that according the book of Ezra a decree made by Cyrus the great was "rediscovered" in the royal archives of Babylon authorising the rebuilding of the temple. Sometime after this in 7th year (397BCE) of the reign of Artaxerxes II? (404-359) Ezra is sent to teach the people of Jerusalem about the law of Moses.

In the book of Nehemiah, Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes in the 20th year of his reign to rebuild. Assuming that Nehemiah lived at the same time as Ezra. This would have been around 385 BCE in the reign of Artaxerxes II. Which would make Nehemiah's reign as governor of Judea last from 385-373 BCE. Which during the time Nehemiah was governor of Judea the "exiles" return and Ezra comes teach the law to the Israelites.

Honestly I got a headache trying to reconcile the events described in both these books. Assuming that the decree by Cyrus the great was a retrojection from the time of Artaxerxes II into the time of Cyrus the Great.

The two conclusions about the return of the "exiles" that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem to rebuild it during the reign of Artaxerxes I and Ezra along with the "Exiles" only came 50 years later! after during the reign of Artaxerxes II or that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes II. The latter to me sounds more plausible. However these two books were written decades after the events described in it were supposed have taken place.

[Minimalist]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60564418/Finke...-JSOT-2008

Scribd is a PITA but I think you'll find the article itself interesting.

514
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
32.4 (2008)
Conclusion

The Persian-period finds in Jerusalem and the search for Nehemiah’s wall are additional cases in which archaeologists have given up archaeology in favor of an uncritical reading of the biblical text. The dearth of archaeological finds and the lack of extra-biblical texts on Persian-period Yehud open the way to circular reasoning in reconstructing the history of this period.The finds indicate that in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods Jerusalem was a small unfortified village that stretched over an area of c.20 dunams, with a population of a few hundred people—that is, not much more than 100 adult men. This population—and the depleted population of the Jerusalem countryside in particular and the entire territory of Yehudin general—could not have supported a major reconstruction effort of the ruined Iron II fortifications of the city. In addition, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for any reconstruction or renovation of fortifications in the Persian period. Taking these data into consideration, there are three ways to explain Nehemiah 3: (1) that it is a utopian list; (2) that it preserves a memory of an Iron Age construction or renovation of the city-wall; (3) that the list is influenced by the construction of the First Wall in the Hasmonean period. All three options pose significant difficulties—the first two more than the third. In any event, the archaeology of Jerusalem in the Persian period—as presented above—must be the starting point for any future discussion.

[Justtristo]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60564418/Finke...-JSOT-2008

Scribd is a PITA but I think you'll find the article itself interesting.

514
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
32.4 (2008)
Conclusion

The Persian-period finds in Jerusalem and the search for Nehemiah’s wall are additional cases in which archaeologists have given up archaeology in favor of an uncritical reading of the biblical text. The dearth of archaeological finds and the lack of extra-biblical texts on Persian-period Yehud open the way to circular reasoning in reconstructing the history of this period.The finds indicate that in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods Jerusalem was a small unfortified village that stretched over an area of c.20 dunams, with a population of a few hundred people—that is, not much more than 100 adult men. This population—and the depleted population of the Jerusalem countryside in particular and the entire territory of Yehudin general—could not have supported a major reconstruction effort of the ruined Iron II fortifications of the city. In addition, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for any reconstruction or renovation of fortifications in the Persian period. Taking these data into consideration, there are three ways to explain Nehemiah 3: (1) that it is a utopian list; (2) that it preserves a memory of an Iron Age construction or renovation of the city-wall; (3) that the list is influenced by the construction of the First Wall in the Hasmonean period. All three options pose significant difficulties—the first two more than the third. In any event, the archaeology of Jerusalem in the Persian period—as presented above—must be the starting point for any future discussion.

I have read the article and come to two conclusions, either the story of the wall building in Nehemiah was totally made up or it was a retrojection of the late Hellenistic period wall into the Persian period.