Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 73
phrases in it, such as “The God which is in Jerusalem” and “Jerusalem which is
in Judah” as authentic formulas which were taken and copied by the author
from the style of the Persian court.
The origin of these expressions was explained in detail by E. J. Bickermann189
who asserts that “For the ancients a city was the dominion of its tutelary gods”190
and thus “The God which is in Jerusalem”, equals titles such as “Sin of Ur” and
others. It is not a geographical indication but a theological conviction, and
expresses the close relationship between the God and the city which is the
center of His cult.
The title of God is the origin of the sanctuary’s title: the expression “The
house of the God which is in Jerusalem” recurs in various parts of Ezra: i 4, 5; ii
68; vii 27 and in Aramaic in Ezr. iv, 24, v 2, 14; vi 12, vii 15, 17.
In Chr. the title attributed to God and to his temple are completely absent;
both the theological conception and the external expression do not occur
even once.191 The difference is accentuated by such examples which seemingly
resemble it, and they are three: 1 Chr. vi 32 (17); 2 Chr. iii 1, xxx 1.
In all these instances “in Jerusalem” is a geographical indication and nothing
more. In 2 Chr. iii 1 it is a part of an accurate designation: “In Jerusalem, on the
Mount Moriah”, etc. In 2 Chr. xxx 1 the emphasis is on the fact that the Passover
was celebrated in Jerusalem by the whole people.
The opposition between Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. is clear-cut. An expression which
is frequent in the different parts of Ezr.-Neh., and which is clearly a product of a
certain period, is absolutely missing in Chr.
to the older view, cf., “Die Proklamation des Kyros in Esra I”, Studien zur Geschichte Israels, etc.,
1964, pp. 61-77.
189) Op. cit., pp. 256-258; 262-268.
190) Op. cit., p. 263.
191) It is probable that the expression “the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem” does not have
the same theological significance when spoken by the Jews on one hand, and the Persian emperors
on the other. The same is also probable as regards the title אלהי השמים “God of heaven” which
is currently used by Neh. and Dan. (Neh. i 4, 5, 9; ii 4, 20; Dan. ii 18, 19, 37, 44) and is frequent also
in the Aramaic parts of Ezr. (v 11, 12; vi 9, 10; vii 12, 21, 23). Here, as well, there might be a difference
between the same title when used by Cyrus in “The Lord, the God of heaven has given to me all
the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezr. i 2). However, the very fact that the writer does not hesitate to
use it is significant. (In Chr. the title אלהי השמים is absent as well, except in the citation from Ezr.
in 2 Chr. xxxvi 23).