The destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the elite of the nation from the homeland into Babylon brought about a grave religious, national, and personal crisis among the exiles living in Babylon, both those who were exiled during the time of Jehoiakim in 597 BCE, and those who had just recently joined them. Additionally, for the first time, the nation was split according to social and class lines that continued to exist independently. An important element of the nation, the leaders, priests, and many of the people of Jerusalem, had to live far from their homeland and the temple. And there was a real threat of physical, spiritual and cultural alienation. To cope with this harsh reality, the exiles first and foremost had to understand the course of historical events, to explain the events that had led to the destruction, and thus, to quickly develop a new social, national and religious framework. However, the land was not left uninhabited. From the different Biblical descriptions of the time of the destruction and the exile, it's clear that there was an ideological gap and a controversy that continued to develop between the exiles in Babylon and the people who remained in the land. Those remained lost the elite class that had shaped the way of life for centuries. The institutions of government to which they had been accustomed, and the major site of religious ritual in the kingdom. However, they did remain in their own homes and on their land. With their own local leadership and the local centers that had served them for so long. It is even possible that in many senses, the situation for those remaining in Judah actually improved, because in the organization of the province after the destruction, there was a new possibility of social mobility and the option to develop a new elite. And many could seize ownership of homes and property. It is reasonable to assume that life without a centralized government placing Jerusalem in the center and regarding it as the only legitimate place for religious ritual, allowed the abolishment of the Jerusalem monopoly and the development of alternate places of religious ritual. During this time, local traditions could have appeared openly, some of which were ancient traditions that had been stored away under the Jerusalem monopoly. Even new traditions could have sprung up which emphasized the importance of, and standing, of the house of Saul, the centrality of the central cities in Benjamin, and the sanctity of sites of worship such as Bethel, Mizpah, Gibeon, and even Shechem. The exiles in Babylon in contrast, underwent an ideological and religious melting pot experience, and within a short time, a new national, religious, and moral worldview took shape, in which Jerusalem and the House of David continued to be central components. From the anger expressed by Ezekiel in his furious prophecies against those who remained in Judah. Particularly you can see in Ezekiel 11, verses 15 to 21, or in Ezekiel 33, verses 23 to 29. It emerges that the exiles could not accept the ideological liberation of those remaining. The attempt to establish their lives in Judah based on an independent leadership, and the moral viewpoints that they had developed. According to these moral views, whoever sinned was punished by exile, and those who remained in Judah were the people of God and were entitled to realize the promise given by God to Abraham. Added to this is the anger of the exiles on those who remained and seized possession of their lands and property because the exiles continued to regard themselves as the legal owner of these assets and they certainly had played a part in the longing to return to Judah. It was only in the second generation of the exiles to Babylon in the mid-sixth century BCE that there is a discernible note of reconciliation with Babylonian rule and with the reality of life in exile, as well as recognition of the existence of the remnant in Judah. There is evidence of a new stage, where the exile acknowledged their loss, adjusted to the situation, and made peace with this reality. It is probable that the province of Judah continued to exist under Babylonian rule as part of a defined administrative unit, headed by a local governor and Mizpah continued to be its capital, possibly until the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall in the middle of the fifth century BCE. There is no evidence that the proclamation of Cyrus, and the Persian rule, brought with them any change in the status of the province, which had already been defined, a legacy from the days of the Babylonian rule. The major change that took place during the Persian rule was reflected in the appointment of governors who were relatives of the royal family and the return of the reigns of government to the elite of the nation, who had been in exile in Babylon. This is one of the most striking and important hallmarks of the new era, which began with a return to Zion, and it led to a renewal of the rule of the old-time elite over the people remaining in Judah. Demographically, the return to Zion would be without significance and no change is detectable between the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the fifth century BCE. Moreover, the unprecedented dwindling of the total population of the province of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem continued into the beginning of the Persian period. One may estimate the population of province of Judah in the middle of the fifth Century BCE at approximately 30,000 people. It is likely that, at the beginning of the Persian period, several hundreds returned to Judah from among the nation's elite, particularly among the priestly caste and those who served in a temple worship and they settled in Jerusalem and its environs. At the same time, the city continued to exist in its poverty, and those who returned were unable to re-establish it as a true urban center. It seems that at this period Jerusalem may be defined as a temple alongside of which there was a place to live for those who served in the temple and perhaps for a few residents. The days of the return to Zion brought to an end a brief exceptional period of time in the history of Judah. The elite returning from Babylon refused to reconcile itself to the fact that at certain point in time that people remaining in Judah had managed their lives without them. That birthright had been taken from Jerusalem, and the central or only temple was standing in ruins. Alongside of these ruins other signs of ritual were springing up. Therefore, immediately upon the return to Zion, there was an expanding of the history of the community at that time from biblical historiography. A historical dark age was created where the land was empty, desolate, and ruined, and its most definitive feature was an account of the exiles in Babylon. As far as the returnees were concerned, a Jewish presence in Judah was renewed only upon their arrival in the land. And the proclamation by Cyrus was the basis for the establishment of the Yehud province. However, the historical, geopolitical, and archeological research that I presented in this course affirm that, in every respect, the circumstances at the beginning of the Persian rule in Judah were a direct continuation of the circumstances during the Babylonian rule. The changes that took place during the days of the return to Zion were the reestablishment of the temple and the renewed recognition that it was the official place of religious ritual of the Persian province. Establishment of the status of Jerusalem as the uncontested political, social, and religious center of the nation and thus, the reestablishment of the elite that had been in exile in Babylon as the nation's leadership. This leadership uses support of the Persian imperial government to introduce its ways and views as they have taken shape in 50 years of Babylonian exile. The religious and national ideology that the returnees brought back with them was innovative and shaped the character of the province until the Hasmonean period in second century BCE. Jewish fanatical society closed in upon itself, set itself apart from the neighbors, and diverted most of its effort to rallying around the center in Jerusalem. The constant tension between the small, weak province, which was fanatical and closed, and the memories of the past and the longing for the future is a central characteristic of the prophetic literature from the early days of the return to Zion and the later historigraphic literature of this area. The tension and the gap between the poor reality, the great memories, and the high expectations to the glorious future, was probably the leading national ideological force in Persian period Judah. However, from any aspect that we checked during this course, the actual situation in the province remained quite the same. The Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic period are a unique area in the history of Judah from 586 to 167 BCE. Judah was a small province under the rule of great empires. The history of Judah and Jerusalem between 586 and 167 BCE is an interlude between two periods of greatness and political independence. The end of the first temple period on the one hand, and the period of the Hasmoneans on the other. Before 586 and after 167 BCE, Judah, and especially Jerusalem were the focus of scribal literature that promoted the centrality of the city, its temple, and the leader of the nation, be it the house of David or the Hasmonean family. Jerusalem and its ongoing expansion played an important role in this literature and in some ways, developed as a result of it. In both periods, the built up-area of the city expanded over a short time period to the western hill of Jerusalem, the area of the modern day Jewish Armenian Quarter the so called mounts, Mount Zion and was enclosed by strong fortifications. The Southeastern Hill, the so-called City of David, was rebuilt and refortified as well. The border of Judah, its army, and its administration also underwent dramatic changes, all of which make the late eighth and seventh century BCE, as well as the second half of the second century BCE, well-defined and easily recognizable periods in the historical and archaeological research of Judah. In contrast with this rich and well-organized architectural remains from the late eighth to seventh century, and to the second and first centuries BCE, not many building remains from the intervening period. The Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic periods have been uncovered in Judah. This is the case even at sites where an abundance of pottery sherds, semi-precious, figurines and other typical Persian, Babylonian or even early Hellenistic period finds have been uncovered. It's clear that, under the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic rule, there was a marked process of attenuation in urban life in Judah. The meaning of all this is that, in contrast with the high expectations for a change, Judah continued to be a rural province for centuries. And Jerusalem renewed its status as a real city only during the late Hellenistic period, after the revolt of the Hasmonean family. In the coming units of this part of the course, my colleagues and I will demonstrate the small and gradual changes in the geo-political, administrative, demographic, and settlement aspects, in order to show that the changes that took place in the Babylonian period continued to exist during all the Persian period. Besides the changes in the cultic status of Jerusalem, no other aspects in the Judahite life in Judah materialized according to the expectation of the representatives of the Babylonian elite who came back to Jerusalem. [MUSIC]
