By Jeremiah W. Cataldo
One of the number of social-political reconstructions of Persian-period Yehud, one "consensus" sticks out - one that states that the Jerusalem priesthood loved a in demand point of authority, symbolized within the Jerusalem temple. regrettably, this leads simply into conclusions of a theocracy in Yehud. the matter, partially, is because of the fast organization of monks assumed to be authoritative with that of a theocratic governing structure.To deal with this challenge, no less than 3 elements of Yehud's governing structure(s) require additional realization: (1) the social implications of a selected governing constitution inside a society; (2) the advancements of a society top as much as that governing constitution; and (3) a sincerely articulated definition of the time period and notion of theocracy. on account that many students seem to rely on a theocratic "structure" or "spirit" sooner or later of their discussions of Persian-period Yehud, one may usualy look forward to finding a transparent definition of theocracy. as an alternative, a hasty and ill-equipped definition that turns out to prevent addressing the social and political complexities is frequently used.The end is that no strength or political vacuum appears to be like to have existed permitting the priesthood to say strength in Yehud. The Persian empire didn't permit territories to improve self sufficient governing buildings (Chapter 2). The social, fiscal, and political geographical regions of Yehud functioned in the framework of Persian imperial management (Chapter 3). And the time period theocracy, whilst outlined in keeping with social-scientific necessities (Chapter 4), doesn't correctly describe the social-political context of Yehud through the Persian interval (Chapter 5).
Read Online or Download Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies) PDF
Similar old testament books
A up to date string of popular-level books written through the recent Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the previous testomony is not anything yet a bully, a assassin, and a cosmic baby abuser. This perspective is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to answer such accusations? and the way are we to reconcile the doubtless disconnected natures of God portrayed within the testaments?
"Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative" seeks, partly, to give a contribution to the continuing dialogue by means of investigating the Solomonic narrative throughout the optics of propaganda and, particularly, subversion. when you consider that earlier reviews have already given enormous consciousness to the propagandistic capability of assorted facets of the Solomonic narrative, Seibert's booklet explores examples of scribal subversion in "1 Kings" 1-11.
This publication features a new edition of the scroll that represents an early revision of the Septuagint towards a more in-depth correspondence with the Hebrew textual content of the Bible. After an in depth creation, the quantity presents the textual content with and with no reconstructions, notes on palaeography and reconstructions, and a remark on translation approach, orthographic peculiarities, and textual family.
This significant paintings re-examines prophecy and the prophets in old Israel, with essays ranging all of the approach from Israel's historic close to japanese history correct as much as the hot testomony. nearly all of essays pay attention to prophecy and the prophets within the outdated testomony, that are approached from a amazing variety of various angles.
- Introduction to the New Testament
- A Blemished Perfection: Book of Job in Context
- Encountering the Book of Genesis
- Answers Book for Kids, Volume 1
Extra info for Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (Library Hebrew Bible Old Testament Studies)
48– 56]). , under Artaxerxes III Ochus. Diodorus writes that Artaxerxes responded by demolishing the walls of the important cities, plundering the shrines for 16. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 544. 17. If Diodorus is correct, we see a similar reaction given by Artaxerxes III to an Egyptian rebellion (Diod. 2). 18. E. 19. , 129; Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, 355. 20. Cook (Persian Empire, 129) writes that Ctesias refers to 424–23 as the “Year of the Four Emperors” (Artaxerxes I, Xerxes II, Sogdianos, and Darius II).
75. , 286) writes that for Weinberg, the bet abot controlled landownership within Yehud, dividing it among the bet abot members. 76. Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Community, 105–6. 1 22 A Theocratic Yehud? ”78 Unfortunately, he does not specify what these reservations are. Yehud is “an outstanding example” because it is the only analyzable example of his theoretical model. Beyond the biblical texts, Weinberg’s theory fails to ﬁnd corroborating evidence. 79 D. 80 Through socialscientiﬁc analysis, Smith examines the structural identity as a survival mechanism of the Judean diaspora in Babylon.
Ctes. 18 Xerxes II took the throne in 424 (cf. Ctes. 23–24]), but Sogdianus (Secydianus) murdered him 45 days later as he lay drunk in bed (Ctes. 19 Ochos, son of Cosmartidene and the satrap of Hyrkania (appointed by Artaxerxes), raised an army, and Arbarius, commander of the cavalry, and Arxanes, the satrap of Egypt, joined him (Ctes. 50]). After reigning for six and a half months (424–2320), Sogdianus was forced to surrender and was subsequently put to death. E. (Ctes. 48– 56]). , under Artaxerxes III Ochus.