1. For the most recent general review of Jewish history in the Persian period one must consult W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein's The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 1: Introduction: The Persian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Of special interest in this volume are the two essays of E. Stern, "The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period," 70-87, and "The Archaeology of Palestine," 88-1 14. For a fuller treatment of the archaeology of this period, see E. Stern's Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1982).
2. A fresh and exciting treatment of Darius I may be found in the excellent volume of J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1983) 67-90.
3. Many of the views presupposed in this chapter are based on my forthcoming work with C. L. Meyers in the Anchor Bible, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1987).
4. A. Rainey's article ("The Satrapy 'Beyond the River,' " AJBA 1 [1969] 51-78) is still the best English-language essay on the subject. A more recent version of it has just appeared in Hebrew, "The Province of Eber Nahara," 105-16, The World History of the Jewish People: The Restoration-The Persian Period (ed. H. Tadmor et al.; Jerusalem: Am Oved Publishers, 1984). Rainey also has let me read the English version of that article which is scheduled for the translation of that volume.
5. E. M. Meyers, "The Shelomith Seal and the Judean Restoration: Some Additional Considerations," Eretz Israel 18 (1985).
6. I refer to P. D. Hanson's influential work, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). His reconstruction of postexilic history has more to do, in my opinion, with the fifth century than with the sixth century. I am much indebted to him for stimulating much of my thinking despite the fact that we have come to different conclusions.
7. See esp. Hag 1:6-11.
8. It is clear that we may now reconstruct the list of governors from Cyrus to Artaxerxes I with a high degree of probability. Based on N. Avigad's reconstruction, which is published in Qedem 4 of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series, Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1976), we may propose the following: Sheshbazzar, 538-520 B.C.E. (phh, Ezra 5:14; "prince," Ezra 1:8); Zerubbabel, 520-510? B.C.E. (pht yhwdh, Hag 1:1, 14); Elnathan, 510-490? B.C.E. (phw', bulla and seal; Shelomith, 'amah of Elnathan, b. ca. 545 B.C.E.); Yeho'ezer 490470? B.C.E. (phw', jar impression); Ahzai, 470-? B.C.E. (phw', jar impression); Nehemiah, 445-433 B.C.E. (hphh, Neh 5:14; 12:26). Although we can reconstruct the high priesthood with some degree of probability, without the kind of archaeological support we have for the governor list we must regard it as only tentative: Joshua, b. ca. 570; Joiakim, b. ca. 545; Eliashib I, b. ca. 545; Johanan I, b. ca. 520; Eliashib II, b. ca. 495; Joiada I, b. ca. 470. Cf. F. M. Cross, "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration," JBL 94 (1975) 17.
9. J. Morgenstern, "Jerusalem-485 B.C.," HUCA 27 (1956) 101-79; HUCA 28 (1957) 15-47; HUCA 31 (1960) 1-29; and idem, "Further Light from the Book of Isaiah Upon the Catastrophe of 485 B.C.," HUCA 37 (1966) 1-28.
10. A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948) 237 n. 23. Olmstead's reconstruction is based on Ctesias, Pers. Epit. 52-53.
11. A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks: The Defense of the West 546-478 B.C. (New York: Minerva Press, 1962) 5-16. See also Olmstead, History, 289-90, and Cook, The Persian Empire, 127.
12. E. Bresciani, "Egypt and the Persian Empire," The Greeks and the Persians from the Sixth to the Fourth Centuries (ed. H. Bengtson; New York: Delacorte Press, 1968) 339-40. The Greeks apparently also had intentions on Cyprus in 460 B.C.E. (Burn, Persia and the Greeks, 560).
13. For example, the residency at Lachish is to be dated to 450 B.C.E., a date proposed by O. Tufnell, Lachish III: The Iron Age (London: Oxford University Press, 1953) 279 and reconfirmed by D. Ussishkin, "The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars," Tel Aviv 4 (1977) 38-39. We suggest below that Nehemiah's repair of the walls and "fortress" or citadel of Jerusalem is also to be understood in this context. Other midfifth-century sites would include stratum IV at Beth Yerah, Megiddo Area C Stratum I, Mesad Ha-Yarkon, Ashdod, Tel el-Hesi, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Farah, South (Sharuhen), Tel el-Ful, Ramat Rahel, Phase I of the citadel of Beth-Zur, and Khirbet Abu Twain. This is only a partial listing of sites that seem to be fortified in the fifth century and that conceivably date after the 460 Egyptian revolt. A systematic survey of this evidence is being undertaken by K. Hoglund of Duke University as part of a dissertation on the Persian period directed by the author.
14. One should not underestimate the fear of Greece on the part of the Persians in the fifth century. The Athenian tribute lists of 454/53 B.C.E. list a "Dor" which may have been part of the Delian League which might well have served as an outpost for Athenian ships involved in the Egyptian and Cypriote revolts. On this point, see B. D. Merritt et al., The Athenian Tribute Lists (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1939-53) 1:483, 3:10-11. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) 391-92 has argued that the fear of a potential alliance between Jerusalem and Athens is what motivated the Persians to support Ezra's return to Jerusalem. Whether or not Dor was a Greek outpost at this time may well be answered by the new excavations undertaken there by E. Stern of the Hebrew University.
15. I am in basic agreement with Rainey ("The Satrapy 'Beyond the River' ") that Yehud constituted a subprovince of the larger satrapy of Beyond the River and was administered by a peha ("governor"). See an extended discussion of this in C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, Note to "governor" in Hag 1:1. The term "high priest" is also extensively discussed here in the Note to hakkohen haggadol.
16. A cautionary note of the benign quality of Persian rule has been sounded by A. Kuhrt, "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy," JSOT 25 (1983) 83-97. Zechariah's vision, The Four Horns and the Four Smiths (Zech 2:1-4; RSV 1:18-21), also suggests that the Persians could instill a great deal of fear also.
17. So Cook, The Persian Empire, 48-49, 71.
18. Much discussion has traditionally been focused upon the accession problems of Darius I and the degree to which they influenced the Book of Haggai and First Zechariah. Although Darius had quelled all opposition by 522 B.C.E. (Cook, The Persian Empire, 50-55), the revolt in Babylon continued until 521. The earliest chronological marker in the Haggai-Zechariah 1-8 corpus is 29 August, 520 (Hag 1:1), and to my mind that is late enough to argue that not only was Darius I fully in control but also the reorganization of the provinces was well along, an activity that can be understood of a monarch who is fully in charge of his territories. Cf. the view of J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1983) 231 and 244.
19. It is curious that Zerubbabel's name occurs with patronymic in Zech 4:6, 7, 9, 10. Of its seven occurrences in Haggai only two of them lack the patronymic, ben-Shealtiel. There is a good deal of confusion in the sources about Zerubbabel's lineage because of the mention in 1 Chron 3:19 that he is descended from Pedaiah. It would seem, however, that he is the nephew or brother of Sheshbazzar governor of Yehud in 538 B.C.E. For a fuller discussion of this question, see Meyers and Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, Note to "Zerubbabel ben-Shealtiel" in Hag 1:1.
20. So E. M. Meyers, "The Use of Tora in Haggai 2:11 and the Role of the Prophet in the Restoration Community," The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Connor; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 69-76.
21. So Cook, The Persian Empire, 71. Plato refers to Darius I as the great lawgiver, and Olmstead (History, 119-34) credits him with the establishment of a penal law code. In Egypt, Darius ordered Aryandes to set up a commission to collect and codify laws, and within sixteen years they were codified on papyrus and published in Egyptian demotic and Aramaic. It is likely that Darius's efforts in the provinces in this area also touched Yehud, where we can imagine that the Primary History underwent further refinement and that other sacred writings, notably the prophets, were collected and organized.
22. This view is a novel one not previously published to the best of my knowledge. A detailed justification for this assumption is presented in the introduction to Meyers and Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. D. L. Petersen's recent commentary treats Haggai as a "brief apologetical historical novel" and Zechariah as a theological statement of the renewal of life in postexilic Yehud with the Temple at its center. See D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984) passim.
23. Sotah 486; Yoma 9b; Sanhedrin I I a; 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan 1. On the end of prophecy, see Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1977) 4. 450-51.
24. Cf. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 225-67, and Hanson, Dawn, passim.
25. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 261 ff.
26. Hanson, Dawn, 292ff.
27. Cook, The Persian Empire, 127-28. The Greek's major victory was won at Salamis against Phoenician and Cilician forces, but the Athenians did not have the will to fight further.
28. Cook, The Persian Empire, 169. There is no independent confirmation of this secondary revolt outside of Ctesias, Pers. Epit., 68-70. Since Megabyzus is credited in Diodorus as commanding the forces opposing the Greek assault on Cyprus in 450 B.C.E., one should be skeptical about the reliability of this account. Stern ("The Persian Empire," 73) maintains that Megabyzus together with Arsames, satrap of Egypt, destroyed the Athenian fleet in Cyprus that had unsuccessfully besieged Kition and Salamas.
29. Ctesias mentions that Megabyzus was supported by his two sons Zopyrus and Artyphius. One force directed against him was led by an Egyptian named Usiris and the other was commanded by the Persian, Menostanes, the king's brother and satrap of Babylon.
30. See in this regard the helpful article of M. Dunand, "La defense du front mediterraneen de 1'empire achemenide," The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations (ed. A. Ward; Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1967) 43-51.
31, For example, P. R. Ackroyd, Israel Under Babylon and Persia (London: Oxford University Press, 1970) 175-78, and G. Widengren, "The Persian Period," Israelite and Judean History (ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977) 528-29.
32. Our discussion has presupposed the traditional ordering of the canonical books. We believe it to be proper and defensible despite the debate on the subject. On this point, see Ackroyd, Israel, 191-96; M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 120-23; and H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord (3d ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) 135-68. Our view that Ezra's mission comes as a direct response to the Egyptian uprising is supported by Blenkinsopp (A History of Prophecy, 244) and inter alia by Rainey (see above n. 4).
33. Stern's views (Material Culture, 237 and inter alia) support the traditional view of A. Alt, who maintained that Yehud was annexed to Samaria after the Babylonian conquest and that it enjoyed very limited autonomy until the visitation of its first true governor, Nehemiah. Cf., however, Avigad, Bullae and Seals, 33, and nn. 125-26; M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 193-201; and Widengren, 509-11. See also a recent supporter of Stern, S. McEvenue, "The Political Structure in Judah from Cyprus to Nehemiah," CBQ 43 (1981) 353-64. I support Avigad's position of relative autonomy for Yehud in the early restoration but reserve judgment on the precise character of the province in relation to Beyond the River. For the time being I am content to use Rainey's term "subprovince" to describe the status of Yehud in the time of Zerubbabel.