Were Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah Contemporaries? A Response to Diana Edelman s Proposed Late Date for the Second Temple

Transcription

1 JBL 127, no. 4 (2008): Were Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah Contemporaries? A Response to Diana Edelman s Proposed Late Date for the Second Temple ralph w. klein rklein@lstc.edu Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL In her recent monograph The Origins of the Second Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, 1 Diana Edelman proposed a drastic revision of the postexilic chronology, moving the dedication of the Second Temple from 516 b.c.e. to a time early in the reign of Artaxerxes I ( b.c.e.). Her proposal results from an attempt to account for the anomaly that, according to the present biblical record, the temple in Jerusalem was constructed in a very small city that would remain unfortified for another seventy years, and she also attempts to fit the temple construction into Persian imperial policy. She proposes that Artaxerxes I initiated a single project to rebuild the temple and to fortify Jerusalem at the same time. Artaxerxes wanted to provide the temple as a place for the citizens of Yehud to worship their national god and to collect taxes for the empire. In support of her hypothesis she discounts the eight dates in the prophets Haggai and Zechariah that link them to the reign of Darius I (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 20; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1), arguing that they were calculated secondarily, based on the prophecy in Jeremiah of restoration after seventy years (Edelman, ch. 2). She also calls into question the historicity of the account of the building of the temple in Ezra 1 6, arguing that it is based only on what could be learned from a series of biblical passages (Ezekiel 40 48; Second Isaiah; Haggai and Zechariah, including their 1 Bible World; London: Equinox,

2 698 Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 4 (2008) dates; and 1 Chronicles 22 2 Chronicles 7; Edelman, ch. 3). 2 Two additional chapters investigate the size of Yehud in the fifth century (ch. 4) and the archaeological data that support her hypothesis (ch. 5). Chapter 6 contains her description of the pragmatic issues that led Artaxerxes to fortify Jerusalem and rebuild the temple at the beginning of his reign. Responding to Edelman s impressive arguments throughout the book would require a monograph of nearly the same size; this note will contest only one crucial item, her attempt through genealogical research to make Joshua 3 and Zerubbabel, on the one hand, and Nehemiah, on the other, near contemporaries. She makes her case for this in ch. 1 (pp ), although she locates also many other persons genealogically in this chapter. 4 If her attempt to make Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah near contemporaries can be called into question, however, the more traditional date for the construction of the Second Temple, unanimously supported by Haggai, Zechariah 1 8, and Ezra 1 6, is quite likely to stand. Edelman (pp ) defends the idea that Nehemiah himself served during the reign of Artaxerxes, as in the biblical text, because of a reference to Sanballat (the arch-rival of Nehemiah in the book of Nehemiah) and his two sons in Elephantine papyrus 30, dated to 408 b.c.e., and the resultant calculations about Sanballat s relative date of birth and his age during the time of Nehemiah. I. The Chronological Date of Joshua The Bible makes the high priest Joshua, under whom the temple was built, a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah, who advocated strongly for constructing the temple in the early years of Darius I. Joshua appears in the following genealogy of priests. 5 2 The only exception to such inner-biblical information is the governor Sheshbazzar, whose name she thinks is fictional. Edelman further denies the authenticity of the Persian documents in Ezra. 3 I have chosen to use the spelling of names that are used in standard English Bibles, except where I quote Edelman s translation of 1 Chr 3: Edelman uses throughout spellings more similar to their Hebrew pronunciation, but does not use the transliteration style used in The SBL Handbook of Style. 4 Edelman suggests that Meshullam the son of Berechiah (Neh 3:30) is the younger brother of the prophet Zechariah. But if this Meshullam is the same as the one mentioned in Neh 3:4, Meshullam s grandfather was Meshezabel and not Iddo. This also negates her assertion that the daughter of Meshullam in Neh 6:18 is the niece of the prophet Zechariah. She makes Hananiah in Neh 7:2 the son of Zerubbabel though no patronymic is given for him. If her genealogical reconstructions of Joshua and Zerubbabel are wrong, Hananiah also cannot chronologically be the son of Zerubbabel. 5 For detailed discussion of these priests, see James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004),

3 Klein: A Response to Diana Edelman 699 Seraiah The last priest of the first temple, executed by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:18 21) Jehozadak The successor of Seraiah, who was deported by Nebuchadnezzar (1 Chr 5:40 41 [Eng. 6:14 15]) Joshua (Jeshua) Identified as the son of Jehozadak (Jozadak) by Ezra 3:2 and Hag 1:1 Joiakim Neh 12:10, 12, 26 6 Eliashib Neh 3:1, 20 21; 12:10, 22; 13:28 Joiada Neh 12:10 11, 22; 13:18 Johanan Neh 12:22 23; Jonathan Neh 12:11 7 There are only a few fixed dates that are helpful. Seraiah died in 586; Joshua was high priest in 520, according to the standard chronology; Eliashib was high priest in 444; and Johanan was high priest in 408. Hypothetical dates of birth and death make this genealogy plausible. If Seraiah would have been forty at his death in 586 (hence born in ca. 626), his son Jehozadak could have been born in ca. 606 b.c.e. Joshua would then be born ca. 586 and would have been seventy when the temple was dedicated in 516. Clearly, Joshua would not have been alive in 465, when, according to Edelman, Artaxerxes I began his reign and initiated the construction of the Second Temple. Edelman addresses this chronological issue by saying that Jehozadak may have been the grandson or great-grandson of Seraiah, thus arbitrarily adding twenty to forty years to the birth date of Joshua, making him born in 566 or even 546. This would make him 101 or eighty-one at the accession of Artaxerxes. The first age is impossible and the second highly unlikely, perhaps requiring that Jehozadak be the great-great-grandson of Seraiah. Edelman (p. 19) also offers the possibility that Jehozadak and Seraiah were not related to each other at all, which means that she can assign whatever dates she wants to for the subsequent priests. The calculations would change somewhat if the dates of the first son were lengthened to an average of twenty-five years, but clearly she can bring Joshua into the proper chronological horizon only by arbitrarily lengthening his genealogy by two or, more probably, three generations. II. Zerubbabel A genealogy of Zerubbabel is provided in 1 Chr 3:16 19: 6 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., inserted two additional names at this point, Eliashib and Johanan ( A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, JBL 94 [1975]: 4 18). For a critical discussion of this proposal, see VanderKam, High Priests, Edelman also rejects the proposal of Cross. 7 Vanderkam suggests that Jonathan is a copyist s mistake for Johanan (High Priests, 54 55).

4 700 Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 4 (2008) Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) Shealtiel Malchiram Pedaiah Zerubbabel Shenazzar Jekamiah Hoshama Nedabiah According to 2 Kgs 24:8, Jehoiachin was born in 615, since he came to the throne when he was eighteen in 597, and it is known that he was still alive, at fiftyfour, in 561 (2 Kgs 25:27). Assuming that Jehoiachin had his first child at eighteen or twenty, Pedaiah, his third son, would have been born in the mid to late 590s, 8 which seems plausible, since Babylonian records indicate that Jehoiachin had five sons who were given provisions in captivity by 592. If Zerubbabel was born in ca. 573, he would have been fifty-three when he is mentioned by Haggai, Ezra, and Nehemiah during the reign of Darius I, ca By the time of Artaxerxes he would have been 108 and presumably long since dead. The study of the genealogy of Zerubbabel has long been plagued by notices in Ezra (3:2), Nehemiah (12:1), and Haggai (1:1) that Zerubbabel s father was Shealtiel, the oldest son of Jeconiah, and not Pedaiah. Numerous attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy, often by the hypothesis that Shealtiel died before siring a son, and that his younger brother Pedaiah married his widow and engendered a son in Shealtiel s name. After discussing this hypothesis and several other solutions and finding them unsatisfactory, Edelman calls attention to an unusual wording in the list of the sons of Jeconiah in 1 Chr 3:17 18: 9 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, and Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. This could be taken to mean that Shealtiel was the only descendant of Jeconiah mentioned, and his name is then followed by the list of six additional names. This list could be taken to mean that these six additional males were all sons of Shealtiel instead of Jeconiah, but the genealogy continues with the lineage of Pedaiah, who would be Shealtiel s second oldest son. Edelman (p. 21) thinks that the link should continue from the oldest son. 10 She therefore emends the genealogy to read as follows (with additions indicated in brackets): the descendants of Yekoniah the captive: Shealtiel, his son, Malkiram [his son], and [the sons of Malkiram]: Pedaiah, Shenazzer, Yekamiah, Hoshama, Nedeviah [five] (p. 21). 8 Edelman (Origins, 21) sets Shealtiel s birth at 597. There is no indication of how many wives were involved in bearing Jehoiachin s children. 9 For discussion of other details of this genealogy, see Gary N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1 9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004), , ; and Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), , Both commentaries retain Zerubbabel as the grandson of Jeconiah. 10 It should be noted, however, that in the two generations after Zerubbabel descendants do not come from the oldest son.

5 Klein: A Response to Diana Edelman 701 The resulting (simplified) genealogy would look like this: Jeconiah Shealtiel Malchiram Pedaiah Zerubbabel This conjectural emendation, therefore, has added two generations to Zerubbabel s genealogy (he is not the grandson, but the great-great-grandson of Jehoiachin). In Edelman s judgment, this brings Zerubbabel to the same generation as Nehemiah, or to the immediately preceding generation. She conjectures a birth date for Zerubbabel of approximately 500. Assigning more realistic absolute dates to these figures, however, points out a major discrepancy. Since Jeconiah was born in 615, the following generations in the genealogy could be dated as follows: Shealtiel 597; Malchiram 577; Pedaiah 557; Zerubbabel 537. That is, after adding two generations by emendation, Edelman really has to add another generation to get a birth date for Zerubbabel that would locate him as an active leader in the early years of Artaxerxes, with a birth date of ca Because of the severe chronological difficulties with both Joshua and Zerubbabel, even after Edelman s textual changes, I believe her proposal for a late date for the Second Temple is not plausible. Since all the other biblical data are against it in any case, she absolutely must resolve the chronological problems with Joshua and Zerubbabel if her radical hypothesis is to have a chance of succeeding.