Download this PDF file - University of Alberta - Journal Hosting

“IN CONVERSATION WITH ODED LIPSCHITS” 13Judah in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E. may be estimated atapproximately 30,000 people (Lipschits, 372).The estimated number for the province immediately after thedestruction of Jerusalem that Lipschits suggests is about 40,000.Lipschits supposes that at most several thousands of the nation’s elitereturned to Judah at the beginning of the Persian Period, but nothingmore. Jerusalem itself remained very poor.At first glance Lipschits’s picture of the period shatters that of EN.At a second glance, however, looked at critically, his work suggestsfresh ways for understanding aspects of EN in the context of the fifthcentury.In this short response to the book I will focus only on theinteresting light that Lipschits sheds on Ezra 1, a section that mostscholars consider as the latest section of EN, ever since H. G. M.Williamson’s influential article on the subject. 1 At a time when theconsensus tilts increasingly towards late (that is, Hellenistic) dating of allof EN, but especially Ezra 1-6, Lipschits’s analysis actually highlightsother possibilities.Although Lipschits himself does not say so, and may not evenagree with my conclusion, his works helps make sense of otherwisepuzzling details in Cyrus’s decree in Ezra 1:2-4 and in the narrator’ssummary of the response to it in 1:5-6.Let me begin with observations that Joseph Blenkinsopp made afew years ago, in two conferences organized by Lipschits (one in TelAviv and one in Heidelberg); the observations are now included in thepapers from the conferences. 2 Blenkinsopp has called attention to theimplicit hostilities between Judah and Benjamin that are reflected inbiblical texts. He examined texts that led him to conclude that suchhostility existed in the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods(Blenkinsopp, 2005, 624-643). According to Blenkinsopp, theassassination of Gedaliah “signaled the beginning of a period ofBenjaminite-Judean hostility which continued throughout the firstcentury of Persian rule” (Blenkinsopp, 2005, 629). The probableexistence of a cult center in Bethel seems to be relevant in thisconnection. According to Blenkinsopp, Bethel remained a cult center –possibly the cult center – in the Neo-Babylonian period and into theearly Persian period. Its proximity to Mizpah, the administrative centerafter the fall of Jerusalem, enhanced its importance (Blenkinsopp, 2003,p. 99).The ways that Lipschits’s book highlights the reversal of fortune ofthese two areas – Judah and Benjamin – provide supportive evidence orreasons for this enmity. Combining literary sources and archaeologicaldata, Lipschits concludes that Mizpah in Benjamin was established as aBabylonian administrative center even before Jerusalem fell. On the eve1 33:1-30.“The Composition of Ezra i-iv,” JTS (1983)2 “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the New-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Eisenbrauns, 2003), 93-107, and “Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period,” in Judah andthe Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (Eisenbrauns,2005), 629-645.