The Evolution of Judaism from Ezra to the Present: Part One: Pharisaic Judaism

By Martin Sicker

The story of the evolution of Judaism from its origins in the remote past into the complex and various forms by which it is known in the present day does not lend itself to a straightforward historical narrative. The following study attempts to understand how the Second Hebrew Commonwealth came into being and the critical role that Mosaic religion played in the process, which resulted in what may be termed Pharisaic Judaism, which effectively came to an end with the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. By the sheer willpower and intellectual ability of the sages who survived the national disaster, Pharisaic Judaism was morphed into Rabbinic Judaism, which ultimately evolved over a period of two millennia into the variety of forms that presently adorn the religious landscape of the Jewish people.

Part 1 of this study is concerned with the story of Pharisaic Judaism, which emerged in a period in which the majority of the Jewish people were political factors in the history of the Jewish nation, something that would only emerge once again in the twentieth century with the creation of the modern State of Israel. Ancient Judaea existed in the midst of the region properly known as Cisjordan, the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, which constituted the land-bridge between Africa and Asia, through which the more accessible one of the two primary trade and military routes between Egypt and Mesopotamia passed. This made it a critical chunk of territory, the control of which was a constant objective of contending powers throughout the history of the Middle East, and gave Judaea a strategic importance virtually unrelated to its natural resources or wealth. Accordingly, in presenting the story of Pharisaic Judaism, considerable space will be given to the geopolitics and domestic politics in which the Jewish religious authorities necessarily were deeply involved, as is the case today in modern Israel.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Feb 20, 2019
• ISBN: 9781796017250

Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle East and Jewish history and religion. His is the author of 42 previous books including Reading Genesis Politically; The Trials of Abraham; The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob; Aspects of Jewish Metarational Thought; The Exodus and the Reluctant Prophet; The Convocation at Sinai; The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses; and Pondering the Imponderable.

Book preview

Copyright © 2019 by Martin Sicker.

ISBN:     Softcover       978-1-7960-1724-3

         eBook             978-1-7960-1725-0   

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

The Twenty-Four Books of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and English Version, Translation Revised by Alexander Harkavy New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, Copyright © 1916.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 02/19/2019

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

789115

Contents

Introduction

1.   Judaism in the Early Second Temple Period

2.   Origins of the Pharisees and Sadducees

3.   Hellenism and the Rise of the Hasmoneans

4.   Between Pharisees and Sadducees

5.   Rome Takes Control of Judaea

6.   The Era of Herod and Hillel

7.   The Herodians and the End of the Ethnarchy

8.   Judaea under the Procurators

9.   The Great Revolt

References

Notes

Introduction

The story of the evolution of Judaism from its origins in the remote past into the complex and various forms by which it is known in the present day does not lend itself to a straightforward historical narrative. The difficulty arises from the fact that from its outset Judaism was intended and designed to be a new and unprecedented civilization with both theological and ethical underpinnings, and not simply as a thoroughly monotheistic religion in a polytheistic world. It is predicated on a covenant between God and the children of Israel, as set forth by Moses in a series of fundamental precepts for creating a just and moral social order, augmented by an unconditional monotheistic commitment to ultimate divine authority. The fundamental precepts of the covenant are to be found in the Torah (the Pentateuch), and were intended to serve as a constitutional framework for the socio-political entity to be established by the children of Israel. The Judaic society was to present itself as a model available for voluntary emulation by other peoples and nations. The point of it all was to demonstrate that mankind was intrinsically capable of repairing the world as they knew it by emulating the children of Israel, for which purpose the latter were formed into a nation like all others, but uniquely guided toward a degree of moral excellence unknown elsewhere and worthy of replication.

In a key passage, Moses informs the children of Israel, as they stand on the threshold of entering the Promised Land to establish the Torah-based socio-political entity on the stage of human history:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as YHVH my Elohim commanded me; that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there, that hath Elohim so nigh unto them, as YHVH our Elohim is whensoever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this Torah, which I set before you this day? (Deut. 4:5-8).

Moses points out that he has already provided the people with the divinely promulgated code of conduct they are to follow in their new homeland, in addition to the rules such as those concerning the Sabbath and the prohibition of idolatry that were to be observed by the children of Israel regardless of location.¹ In rabbinic tradition, the adjuration, Observe therefore and do them, is not a redundancy, but an instruction to observe the negative precepts, that is, to withhold from violating them, and to do the positive precepts, that is, to actively carry out their provisions.² Should they do so, they will constitute a model civilization that will earn the admiration of all who become aware of them, inspiring others to say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people, to live by such standards, the term great in this context clearly meaning spiritually great. Indeed, Moses assures his listeners, this is as it should be because, after all, what other nation is privileged to be on such intimate terms with Elohim, the creator and sovereign of the universe, the God who assisted and assists them in their hour of need whenever He deems it appropriate.

There are, of course, many nations that are more numerous and more powerful than Israel, but the civilization that they reflect pales in comparison with that established by the righteous statutes and ordinances of the Torah, which Moses has set before you this day. The righteousness of the statutes and ordinances, it has been presumed, relates to their being perceived as fair and acceptable.³ Alternatively, it has been suggested, the righteousness spoken of reflects the idea that the laws are not designed to further the interests of any particular group, including the societal elite.⁴

This passage raises an obvious problem in that it suggests that when the peoples of the land observe Israel’s performance of the statutes they will be deeply impressed by it, whereas in reality it would seem that they are more likely to scorn them for some of their seemingly bizarre religious practices such as universal male circumcision of infants, and the strictures related to the previously unheard of weekly day of rest, Shabbat. Accordingly, it has been suggested that what the passage means to convey is that what will most impress outsiders is the body of ordinances, which portray a disciplined, moral, and just society, one that urges replication. When this perception takes hold, they will also accept the unknown wisdom behind the statutes for which no reasons have been given other than it is the divine wish that they be observed.⁵ It has also been noted in this regard that the passage is in effect an assertion that the wisdom of the Torah is unique and not derived from the cultures of the surrounding nations, including Egypt and Mesopotamia.⁶

It should be noted, however, that the statement for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples is unique in one respect. It is the only text in the entire Torah that is concerned with what others think about it. But why is Moses concerned about what the peoples the Israelites are about to conquer will think of them? One cultural response is, This verse makes the claim that inherent in the Torah is its capacity to be understood by non-adherents. The claim here is that the Torah is universal, that everyone can understand its teachings (‘statutes and ordinances’). The Torah is not self-referential, not self-enclosed … In a word, this verse maintains the religious legitimacy of reason, of that tool by which any person can objectively convey ideas to another.⁷ Alternatively, it is suggested that Moses is not really concerned about what outsiders think about Israel’s body of laws, but that the statement is actually intended for the benefit of the Israelites themselves, making them aware that the only essential difference between them and the peoples they are about to conquer and dispossess is their possession of the code of precepts and laws that will shape a unique society, which is the only purpose of their having been divinely granted the land they are about to occupy and transform into their national homeland.⁸

The implications of Moses’ opening statement in this passage are far reaching. For one thing, his assertion that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it puts people on notice that many of the precepts and laws that have been and are about to be revealed do not and were not intended to apply to children of Israel living outside the land.⁹ For another, the normal process of nation building is for the people of a land to form themselves into a nation and then develop or adopt laws by which it is to be governed. In the case of Israel, however, the people are given the laws first and only then the land in which they were to become operative. The inversion of the process suggests that the laws of the Torah are not merely the means for establishing and maintaining a viable national existence, but the very purpose for which it exists.¹⁰

In effect, in this statement, Moses sets forth the rationale for the existence of Israel as a nation; to serve as a model for emulation by others, exemplifying in practice the ultimate divine wisdom revealed in the Torah bequeathed to them at Mount Sinai. He does not speak here of proselytizing, of reaching out to others, but rather becoming a national society that can be the envy of and inspiration of others. As one modern writer put it, The essential nature of the people of Israel is not in the function that it carries out for others, but in its very own existence. Yet the stronger and more complete its existence, the more it also creates a light for others … The burning torch does not give light because it wishes to do so. It blazes because that is its existence, that is the way it expresses itself, and by so doing it also gives light to others.¹¹

The situational reality of the children of Israel at the time of the exodus from Egypt was that they consisted of a dozen ethnically related but relatively independent tribes. Moses, as their political leader, was faced by the awesome task of unifying the tribes into a coherent nation while retaining their internal tribal structures. The problem that he and his successors had to deal with was the fact that although all the tribes derived from a common patriarch, Jacob (Israel), they also derived from four tribal matriarchs, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah, each bearing their own tribal histories. In effect, the only unifying factor was the realization that they were all liberated by the same God, to whom they all pledged loyalty and worshipped in biblically specified ways, primarily sacrificial rites, a mode of worship common to many other peoples. Accordingly, it was proposed to cultivate the national unity of the tribes by prescribing a common system of worship to be adopted by all the children of Israel. It also was insisted that the prescribed rites be carried out exclusively in a single national sanctuary, initially the portable Tabernacle, and later the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, which would effectively compel the diverse tribes to converge thereon as required by an established liturgical calendar.

As a result of this, and for a brief period of less than a half-century, the Temple in Jerusalem became the heart of the entire nation of Israel. However, for a number of political reasons, described at length in the so-called ‘historical’ books of the Hebrew Bible, it proved to be insufficient to stymie the centrifugal political forces that tore the nation apart into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, with Jerusalem as its capital. Effectively closing the Israel-Judah border, the northern kingdom denied its people access to the Temple and created its own sanctuaries, which led to idolatrous practices decried by a host of prophets until its destruction by the Assyrians near the end of the eighth century B.C.E. The southern kingdom of Judah became incrementally diminished in size over the next hundred and thirty-four years to the region surrounding Jerusalem until the kingdom was brought to an end by the Babylonians with their conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 B.C.E.

Following the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the middle and upper classes to Babylonia, the remainder of Judah’s population was permitted to remain in place undisturbed, provided they undertook to uphold the agricultural economy and not to engage in any activities contrary to Babylonian interests. It appears that a Babylonian commander, Nebuzaradan, had almost immediately taken steps to normalize life in the country, including some redistribution of the lands of those members of the upper classes, who had been sent into exile, to those who had previously been without land of their own (Jer. 39:10). It clearly was not the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar’s intention to turn the entire country into a wasteland, but rather to permit it to flourish as best it could as a semi-autonomous vassal under his indirect rule. He evidently did not consider Judah of sufficient significance to incorporate it as a province within his growing empire, which would have required an investment of resources incommensurate with the benefits to be derived. Instead, he decided to rely on a local administration drawn from elements within the population known to have been opposed to the pro-Egyptian policies of the previous royal government.

Accordingly, as noted by the biblical historiographer, for the people that were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchdnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan (2 Kings 25:22), a known advocate of a pro-Babylonian policy under the previous regime, the country’s administrator. Although many translations add the term governor when describing Gedaliah’s appointment, the Hebrew text does not in fact assign any title to Gedaliah, leaving the character of his appointment undefined. It has been proposed, however, that Gedaliah was actually appointed as king of Judah, replacing Zedekiah on the throne, but that his precise role was deliberately left unclear in the biblical texts because he was not a member of the house of David, even though there are a number of textual allusions clearly suggesting that he was in fact given the status of a vassal king by Nebuchadnezzar.¹²

Whether as king, governor, or administrator, Gedaliah’s appointment meant no less than that the Babylonians made a serious attempt after the large-scale removal of the nationalists to rebuild autonomous structures—albeit under their supervision—in the devastated land with the help of the reform party, the latter referring in effect to those favoring fealty to Judah’s prior commitment to Babylonian suzerainty.¹³ Gedaliah himself came from a prominent Judahite family, his grandfather Shaphan having served as a high government official under Josiah, two of his uncles were known political leaders during the reign of Jehoiakim, and another uncle was one of the envoys that Zedekiah sent to Babylon. His father Ahikam supported the prophet Jeremiah when he was placed on trial for sedition, clearly indicating his pro-Babylonian sentiments. It should come as no surprise that Nebuchadnezzar would seek to reward those who unsuccessfully advocated for accommodation with Babylonia and to place them in charge of Judah’s affairs. Jeremiah, who had advocated so strongly against the course of action that led to the destruction of the state and Jerusalem, was singled out and offered the choice of relocating to Babylonia as a protégé of Nebuchadnezzar, but preferred to remain in Judah as a counselor to Gedaliah.

With Jerusalem in ruins, Gedaliah moved his headquarters to Mizpah, where the prophet-judge Samuel had established a nominal center for the tribal confederacy centuries earlier, and prior to the establishment of the monarchy. Under Gedaliah’s administration, the work of restoration proceeded apace. Former inhabitants of Judah that had fled the fighting began to return to their villages and to take up their agricultural labors as before. Former soldiers who had found refuge in the mountains rather than surrender now came to Gedaliah, pledging to live peacefully, and were given parcels of land that had been abandoned by those sent into exile. Accordingly, Gedaliah’s first and foremost reform was to legalize the status of the usurped lands by recognizing as owners those occupying or tilling them. Thus the ‘poorest of the land’, those not exiled, took possession of the lands through this exceptional measure.¹⁴

However, among the former army commanders who now came to Mizpah with their surviving troops, there was a descendant of the house of David, a prince named Ishmael ben Nethaniah, who clearly resented the idea of being subject to the rule of Gedaliah, someone appointed by the Babylonians, who was not of royal blood. Gedaliah was forewarned of a conspiracy that was brewing by Johanan ben Kareah, a former army commander who had returned to Judah with a sizeable force of veterans under the terms of the Babylonian amnesty. According to Jeremiah, he was told: Dost thou know that Baalis the king of the children of Ammon hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah [who had returned from refuge with Baalis] to take thy life? But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam believed them not (Jer. 40:14). Although the threat from Ishmael was prescient, it has been argued that the purported Ammonite conspiracy is less than probable. Baalis must have learned something from the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. His political and military power was too small for him to question or disturb the Babylonian administration and military machinery.¹⁵ Presumably, Gedaliah simply could not believe that Ishmael actually thought he could assassinate the Babylonian-appointed governor and get away with it without retaliation from Babylon.

Within a few months of Gedaliah’s appointment, Ishmael’s plot was put into motion with Gedaliah’s assassination and the abduction of a number of prominent Judahites including the daughters of Zedekiah, who had been left in Gedaliah’s care. They were being taken across the Jordan, most probably to Ammonite territory, where they presumably were going to be held as hostages. Johanan ben Kareah pursued Ishmael’s band with his own men and succeeded in releasing the captives, but Ishmael and some of his men managed to escape to Ammon.

Johanan was now faced by the dilemma of whether to remain in Judah, certain that once Nebuchadnezzar learned of what happened to his appointee he would rain vengeance down of those remaining in Mizpah as well as ravage the country once more. His other option was to seek refuge in Egypt, under the protection of its king Hophra, Judah’s recent ally against Babylonia. Jeremiah urged Johanan not to take the latter step because it would completely demoralize the population of Judah, and deprive the nation of the only remaining citizens capable of administering the territory. Johanan, however, remained unpersuaded by Jeremiah and forced the prophet to go along with him and a number of families from Judah into exile in Egypt, where they were permitted to establish a Judahite colony on the banks of the Nile. It turned out that Johanan had a better sense of reality than the prophet. When Nebuchadnezzar learned of what transpired, hundreds more Judahite families were exiled to Babylonia, Judah losing nearly all of its population in some districts.

The experiment in self-government under Babylonian oversight encouraged by Nebuchadnezzar had proven to be a failure, a reflection of the power of the nationalist fervor that continued flourish, notwithstanding the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and its political and spiritual center in Jerusalem. We know nothing of what took place in Judah following Gedaliah’s assassination and the further depopulation of the country by Nebuchadnezzar in retaliation. The era of what is often referred to as the First Hebrew Commonwealth that lasted for almost half a millennium from Saul to Gedaliah had definitively come to an end.

Nonetheless, the fall and destruction of the ancient Israelite states did not bring an end to the Israelite nation. This is because the Israelite nation did not follow the usual historical course of other nations in the ancient world. All of the ancient nations discussed in Scripture, Amalekites, Amorites, Ammonites, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Edomites, Egyptians, Hittites, Hivites, Hurrians, Jebusites, Midianites, Moabites, Philistines, Phoenicians, and others, vanished off the stage of history—only the Israelites survived. It would appear that the principal reason for this is that, as the biblical writers made clear, Israel was formed as a nation before it obtained a territorial provenance. The glue that held the nation together was not the territory from which they came or later found themselves in, as was the case with the nations enumerated above as well as with most if not all of the nations that have subsequently appeared on the stage of history. It was not the land in which they settled that created the nation of Israel; it was the nation that set its impression on the land. In other words, Israel was uniquely capable of having emerged and developed as a nation without a land, and was therefore able to survive as a nation after its land was taken from it. Other ancient nations did not disappear physically when their states were wiped out—they assimilated into the conquering populations, and thus lost their national identities. Although many ancient Israelites followed this course as well, there always remained a significant number that never surrendered their national identity, waiting and praying for the day of national reconstitution in their ancient land.

For this reason, the destruction of the ancient Israelite states, considered from a long-term historical perspective, represented nothing more than a temporary break in Israel’s national history, that is, the history of how the nation of Israel dealt with its self-determination and political power in the geopolitical context of the ancient world. Accordingly, as the history of the Jews in the Babylonian diaspora began to unfold, Jewish history in its ancient homeland began once again, facing the same sort of national issues of self-determination and political power that the ancient Israelite states had wrestled with for many centuries. The First Hebrew Commonwealth had indeed come to an inglorious end, but only half a century later the first steps toward the creation of the Second Hebrew Commonwealth were taken by the clamor of the prophets of the era to begin the process of national restoration by rebuilding its ‘heart,’ the Temple in Jerusalem, the unifying role of which would no longer be complicated by the tribalism of earlier times.

The following study attempts to understand how the Second Hebrew Commonwealth came into being and the critical role that Mosaic religion played in the process, which resulted in what may be termed Pharisaic Judaism, which effectively came to an end with the destruction of the Temple. By the sheer willpower and intellectual ability of the sages who survived the national disaster, Pharisaic Judaism was morphed into Rabbinic Judaism, which ultimately evolved over a period of two millennia into the variety of forms that presently adorn the religious landscape of the Jewish people.

Part One of this study is concerned with the story of Pharisaic Judaism, whose beginning stemmed from the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians and ended with the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans some five centuries later, which effectively gave birth to Rabbinic Judaism, the subject of Part Two of this study. There is a critical historical difference between the narratives of Pharisaic Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. Pharisaic Judaism emerged in the context of Jewish History, a period in which the majority of the Jewish people were political factors in the history of the Jewish nation, something that would only begin emerge once again in the twentieth century with the creation of the modern State of Israel. By contrast, Rabbinic Judaism emerged in the context of the History of the Jews, a two millennia-long era in which the prosaic history of the Jewish people rested entirely in the hands of others in the vast diaspora into which the people were dispersed. It was during this extended period that the religious and cultural aspects of Rabbinic Judaism underwent extraordinary study and exposition that enabled Jewish communities around the world to preserve their Judaic heritage despite external pressures to abandon it.

Thus, whereas Pharisaic Judaism was an inseparable element in the political history of the Second Hebrew Commonwealth, Rabbinic Judaism, as a minority religious culture, took root primarily in the enclaves of Jews strewn throughout the diaspora with little or mostly no control over their very existence. Accordingly, in the story of Pharisaic Judaism, considerable space will be given to the geopolitics and domestic politics in which the religious authorities necessarily were deeply involved, as is the case today in modern Israel. Ancient Judaea existed in the midst of the region properly known as Cisjordan, the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, which constituted the land-bridge between Africa and Asia, through which the more accessible one of the two primary trade and military routes between Egypt and Mesopotamia passed. This made it a critical chunk of territory the control of which was a constant objective of contending powers throughout the history of the Middle East, and gave Judaea a strategic importance virtually unrelated to its natural resources or wealth.

1

Judaism in the Early Second Temple Period

There are virtually no reliable historical records regarding either the remnants of the kingdom of Judah that remained in place, or those removed to exile in Babylonia, during the half-century following the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple. It was during that period that the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi, a descendant of the high priestly family of Zadok, who had been exiled to Babylonia along with king Jehoiachin in 597 B.C.E., received his prophetic call, as it states: In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, the word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him (Ezek. 1:2-3).

In Jewish tradition, for substantive reasons discussed later in this study, Ezekiel turned out to be perhaps the most controversial of all the prophets of Israel. In addition, it was noted that, according to an early tradition, Before the land of Israel had been especially chosen, all lands were suitable for divine revelations; after the land of Israel had been chosen, all other lands were eliminated.¹⁶ That is, after Moses passed from the scene, true divinely-inspired prophecy only took place in the Promised Land. However, according to the book of Ezekiel, he received the call to prophecy outside the land of Israel. In a tenuous attempt to reconcile the inconsistency, it has been suggested that some say: He had already spoken with him in the land, and then He spoke with outside the land.¹⁷ That is, without any textual evidence in support of this supposition, it was suggested that Ezekiel’s prophetic mission began in the Land of Israel, and simply continued after his exile to Babylonia. A millennium later, it was argued: Whosoever prophesied did so either in the Land, or concerning it, viz. Abraham in order to reach it, Ezekiel and Daniel on account of it. The two latter had lived during the time of the first temple, had seen the Shekhinah [the Divine Presence], through the influence of which each one who was duly prepared became of the elect, and able to prophesy.¹⁸ Of course, as is well known, Daniel is not acknowledged as a prophet in Jewish tradition, his book being excluded from the works of the early and later prophets, and included among the biblical collection of non-prophetic works known as Ketuvim or Writings. Ezekiel thus appears to be the only prophet other than Moses whose entire sphere of prophetic activity lay outside the Land of Israel. While the word of other contemporary prophets such as Jeremiah may have reached the ears of the exiles, it clearly was Ezekiel’s prophetic voice that mostly resonated among them. It is noteworthy that Ezekiel’s dual personality as prophet and priest is conspicuously reflected in his discourses. As a prophet he predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the ultimate restoration and regeneration of the people. As a priest he described the structure of the future Temple, and gave a minutely detailed account of the form of worship to be practiced in it.¹⁹

The fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy of restoration began with the death of Nebuchadnezzar in about 562 B.C.E., which took place as Babylonian control of the Mesopotamian region began to deteriorate rapidly because of the rise of a more powerful state that emerged in the north by the unification of the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great. It soon became quite evident that Cyrus would no longer tolerate the continued independent existence of Babylonia on his southern flank, always in a position to split his empire in two by a northward thrust. In the autumn of 539, with the support of defectors from the Babylonian alliances, a Persian army invaded and overwhelmed and destroyed the Babylonian army at Opis on the Tigris. Babylon itself was subsequently taken virtually without a struggle, only token resistance being offered by the forces in the citadel. Babylonia as an independent state simply ceased to exist.

In addition to being a highly competent general, Cyrus was also a masterful statesman. He went out of his way to show particular sensitivity to the religious traditions and practices of the peoples who had become subject to his rule. Rather than characterize his victory as a defeat of the enemy, he portrayed himself as the successor of the national rulers he had displaced, making appropriate gestures of affiliation to their gods. He made it appear that all that had happened was a change of dynasty, with social and economic life being restored to its traditional patterns. As a result of such policies, the Persians experienced a far greater degree of loyalty than might otherwise have been expected from the peoples conquered by them. Moreover, in sharp contrast with the legacies of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, Cyrus neither decimated the conquered peoples nor deported their leaders. His policies of benevolence and reconciliation were clearly unprecedented in the tumultuous history of the region.

According to an ancient inscription, known as the Cyrus Cylinder, after listing a number of Mesopotamian cities, Cyrus declared: I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.²⁰ Given this example of Cyrus’ beneficent policy, it is not unreasonable to assume that he did likewise with regard to comparable cities on the western side of the Euphrates, including Jerusalem.

It also has been suggested that Cyrus may have felt a special affinity with the Jews, both in Persia and in Judah, because of cultural developments in his own country. Simultaneously with the preaching of the great prophets of Israel, Zarathustra had denounced the paganism of the Persians, and inculcated the principles of a higher religious belief. Hence the Persians had an inherent sympathy with Jewish monotheism, and from the time of Cyrus till the fall of the empire they made no attempt to interfere with the religious observances and beliefs of their Jewish subjects.²¹

With regard to Cyrus’ edict regarding the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the repatriation of Jews to Judah, the book of Ezra provides two different texts, one in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic, that claim to be the words of Cyrus in that respect. The Hebrew text states that it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to proclaim that God hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people—his God be with him—let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord (Ezra 1:1-3).

The Aramaic version claims that there was found at Ahmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a roll, and therein was thus written: ‘A record. In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree: ‘Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be builded, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber, and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house; and also let the gold and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought back unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, everyone to its place, and thou shalt put them in the house of God (Ezra 6:2-5).’

At first glance the Hebrew version seems more likely, because of its brevity and generality. However, on closer analysis, the Aramaic version seems more realistic, precisely because of its much greater specificity and length, the cited portion being but a small part of the document representing about a third of the entire text. However, one can hardly imagine Cyrus, deeply engaged in wars of imperial expansion, being concerned with the architectural features of the rebuilt temple, and willing to pay for the construction out of his own treasury, and returning all the gold and silver vessels taken as booty by the Babylonians. What one can readily imagine is Cyrus telling his scribe to prepare a directive granting his authorization for the rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. One can also imagine his secretary consulting with the spokesmen of the Jewish community of Babylon about the appropriate wording of the document to make the king’s wishes clear to the regional satraps, given the prevailing chaos in multi-ethnic Cisjordan following the disintegration of Babylonian authority there. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that the entire document might have been written by the Jewish consultants, with some edits by the king’s scribe, and simply placed before the king for his signature, without him actually reading it. For Cyrus, it was not a major issue, for the Jews it was enormous.²²

It has been pointed out that Cyrus’ decree does not mention anything about a return of exiles from Babylonia to Judah, nor does Ezra 1.2-4 specifically state it. It is primarily concerned with the rebuilding of the temple … This being the case, it might be suggested that the content of Cyrus’ decree was not only directed to the exiled Judahites, but also included the people of Judah, who had never been deported … The king would certainly not have conceived of the possibility that only a particular group of Yahweh’s people were meant. If this is right, the returnees had usurped the right given to the people of Judah. Naturally, conflicts and antagonism resulted.²³

Armed with this, or some other version of Cyrus’ decree, the return of the Babylonian exiles began shortly thereafter in 536 B.C.E. This single act earned the undying gratitude and loyalty of the Jewish people to the House of Cyrus and the Persian state for the next two centuries. In this instance, Cyrus’ basic inclinations toward acting with tolerance and generosity also served a broader geopolitical purpose. Cisjordan