Sárospataki Füzetek 18. (2014)

2014 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Jacob J. T. Doedens: The Return of YHWH and the End of the Exile

The Return of YHWH and the End of the Exile

there is little statistical documentation of the Neo-Babylonian deportations, they probably followed the practices of the Assyrians. There are indications that the Babylonians were even more selective than their predecessors.33 The fact that not everyone was relocated appears to be corroborated by excavations which show that the cities in the region of Benjamin (Gibeon, Bethel, Mizpah, Gibeah) remained undamaged, while cities in Judah: Jerusalem, Lachish, and Bet-Shemesh suffered complete destruction.34

Estimated figures for the population of Jerusalem at the time of its destruction vary between 24,000 and 250,000.35 The Babylonian action against Judah appears to have been twofold: they wanted a province of Judah with another centre than Jerusalem and without a king of Davidic provenance. This implied a shift in the centre of power within Judah, and had as side-effect that also the peripheral regions of the state appear to have been abandoned, probably due to lack of protection close to the borders. However, it was not the Babylonian intent to empty the land totally; such would also destroy tax-income from the region.36 Based on archaeological data, it appears that Judahs population declined with more than 50% in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem,37 although some regions were more affected than others.38 Life went on for the survivors, whether in exile or remaining in Judah. Cities were repopulated,39 even if this meant that in some cities people only lived between the ruins.40 At the same time, it is hardly possible to underestimate the traumatic effects of the Babylonian terror on both communities, of those in exile and of those who stayed in the land.41 Irrespective the number of people who belonged to these communities, horrific things had happened to

33 Cf. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 82-83.

34 Cf. Albertz, Israelin Exile, 82; Smith-Christopher,"Impact of the Babylonian Exile," 17.

35 Cf. Smith-Christopher, "Impact of the Babylonian Exile," 17.

36 Cf. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 68-69.

37 Cf. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, xii.

38 Jerusalem and its environs suffered until the beginning of the Persian period a loss of 89%, while suffered a loss of 56% in population, according to Eric Meyers, "Exile and Restoration in Light of Recent Archaeology and Demographic Studies," in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, (ed. Gary N. Knoppers et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 167-168.

39 See Jer 40:10, where Gedaliah instructs the people to inhabit the cities that they have taken.

40 Cf. Smith-Christopher, "Impact of the Babylonian Exile," 17. The (relatively few) finds of archaeology from Judah in the mid-sixth century bce displays signs of a so called 'post-collapse society', cf. Kirsi Valkama, "What Do Archaeological Remains Reveal of the Settlements in Judah during the Mid-Sixth Century bce?" in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Flistorical Contexts (BZAW 404; ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 39-59.

41 Middlemas suggests that the two personifications in Deutero-lsaiah, 'Lady Jerusalem'and the 'Suffering Servant' may represent both communities: 'Lady Jerusalem', then, refers to the people who stayed back in Judah, the'Suffering Servant'is the representation of the exiles, cf. J. A. Middlemas, "Going Beyond the Myth of the Empty Land: A Reassessment of the Early Persian Period," in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, (ed. Gary N. Knoppers et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 181-182.

Sárospataki Füzetek 17. évfolyam

2014!1

33