Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

EXILE

The period (ca. 587/586–515 b.c.e.) when much of the population of Judah was deported to captivity in Babylonia.

Nebuchadnezzar II became crown prince of the Neo-Babylonian Empire about the time of his dramatic victory over the Egyptian forces at Carchemish in 605. After a delay of some years, he resumed his western campaign and put Jerusalem under a brief siege in March 597. After installing a king “of his liking,” Nebuchadnezzar then seized much booty and removed it to Babylon. More important, after the young Judean king Jehoiachin surrendered, a number of residents were taken as exiles and resettled in the Babylonian heartland. Confirmation of these events comes not only from Babylonian royal inscriptions, but also the Weidner text, a cuneiform document listing rations issued to Jehoiachin’s household in exile. Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim, had been placed on the throne in Jerusalem by the Egyptian pharaoh, so Nebuchadnezzar removed this line and installed Zedekiah (changing his name from Mattaniah) as a client ruler. However, Zedekiah attempted an Egyptian-supported bid for independence, and Nebuchadnezzar returned to deal with the rebellion. After a long siege, Jerusalem fell in August 587/6. The two events, the surrender in 597 and the destruction in 587/6 (and perhaps other campaigns hinted at only in Jeremiah), included the exile of significant numbers of prisoners-of-war who were deported south of the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

It is important to understand the Babylonian Exile as the conclusion of a long historical process. The destructive campaigns by Mesopotamian regimes arguably begin with the reformation of the Neo-Assyrian military and political structure of empire initiated by Tiglath-pileser III (745-727). The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the fall of Judah, and the deportation of a significant segment of the conquered population must be theologically and sociologically appreciated within the larger historical development of “world empire” in the Near East. The community that went into exile became perhaps the most important Jewish community by which much of the OT was either edited or written. Despite the major significance of these events, however, the Babylonian Exile is often understated in standard historical works.

Attempts to understand the impact of the Exile focus typically on three main kinds of evidence:

(1) Biblical estimates of the number of exiles taken in the surrender of 597 vary widely. 2 Kgs. 24:14 numbers the “warriors” and “officials” (the vague śarîm) at 10 thousand, but also implies that the number includes “artisans” and “smiths.” Only the “poorest of the land” were left, perhaps to be taken as a qualitative comment on the remaining community. In 1 Kgs. 24:16 further numbers are given for “men of valor” (7000) and “artisans and smiths” (1000). Noting the round numbers and their great size, many scholars favor the far lower figures given in Jer. 52:28 as more accurate. But are only men counted? Based on various readings of these figures, estimates of the actual number of exiles vary from 3000 to over 30 thousand. Even the highest numbers, however, are dwarfed by the sheer size of the more than 3 million that the Neo-Assyrian Empire claims to have deported in various campaigns. The numbers of the community listed in the “Golah list” of Ezra 2 = Neh. 7 are not typically considered a reliable measure of the exiled community, because this late text probably represents an early census of the population within the province of “Yehud” under Persian rule (post-539).

Attempts to estimate the population of Jerusalem before the Exile, to gain some perspective, are also fraught with difficulties. Suggestions range from roughly 24 thousand (estimating 40-50 people per dunam) to 250 thousand (comparing Jerusalem to Ebla, 446 persons per dunam). These estimates vary so greatly as to make confident assessments of a quantitative impact on Judah extremely difficult. Other scholars point to the socioeconomic status of the exiles (presumably consisting mainly of the leadership, scribes, artisans, and military leaders) and thus call for a qualitative assessment of the impact of the Exile, irrespective of the actual percentages of the population. Sociologically more important is the simple fact that it was clearly a large enough number of exiles for groups to be resettled together, thus allowing them some successful continuance of familiar life (cf. the elders who meet in Ezekiel’s home, Ezek. 8:1, thus reproducing the leadership role of community elders).

The text does not even attempt to number those killed and exiled in 587/6, in a horrific encounter with the full brunt of Nebuchadnezzar’s militia. The state of the community left behind is a matter of some further debate. An active religious and social community may have remained in Palestine and been responsible for considerable literary activity (cf. Jer. 41:4-5). It would certainly have been in the interests of the Neo-Babylonian regime to continue economic productivity in the land, but a reading of Lamentations as more than mere stereotypical lament language suggests rather thorough devastation. All of these matters invite further consideration of archaeological evidence.

(2) Virtually all archaeological assessments of the destruction of 587/6 suggest that Jerusalem was treated severely, the walls broken down and the city plundered, with evidence of Babylonian destruction everywhere. Many nearby towns also show total cessation of occupation or destruction levels indicating Babylonian battles. It is unlikely that any viable material culture could have been maintained above a mere subsistence level.

Any archaeological survey should include royal inscriptions that relate to the events and Neo-Babylonian propaganda about the Exile. An important cuneiform inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II mentions his subjecting deported people to corvée labor, which accords with frequent references to forced labor associated with Neo-Babylonian rule over captive peoples. This accords with Robert McC. Adams’ archaeological survey of the central flood plain of the Euphrates showing rapid growth in the number of settlements in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and suggesting a campaign of transferring large masses of people in order to provide labor in the rehabilitation of that region.

(3) Finally (and, significantly, following an attempt to assess the social and political realities), any theories about the theological impacts of the Exile must begin with an assessment of the significance of an increasing exilic-period vocabulary referring to bonds, chains, and fetters (e.g., Isa. 45:14; 52:2; Ps. 149; Lam. 3:7) as well as various terms for places of detention (Jer. 32:2; 34:13; 38:6; Zech. 9:11) and the increasing incidence of the theme of “reversal of fortune” in exilic and postexilic literature and folklore (Daniel, Esther, Ps. 137; ; cf. the frequent biblical motifs “sight to blind” and “release of prisoners” as metaphors of exile, Ps. 146:7-8; Isa. 42:7; 61:1; Zech. 9:1). The Priestly writer’s obvious concern with maintaining purity and separation surely reflects the strategies of a minority population preserving identity and internal structure.

Any theological assessments, however, are difficult in the face of the general underestimation of the impact of the Exile in biblical traditions. There remains a notable ambiguity by the standard works in assessing that impact. Scholars continue to seek a “balance” by taking care not to “overemphasize” the significance of the Exile, and inevitably deny that the exiles should be called “slaves” or “prisoners.” Suggestions of how they would have been legally classed in ancient Neo-Babylonian society shed little light on the actual treatment of the communities in exile. The situation of the exiles is described variously as one of relative freedom and prosperity, with the opportunity to order their own affairs, yet still uncongenial. Inevitably, the presumed lack of evidence seems to have pushed 20th-century scholarship toward a benign assessment of the human and social effect of the Exile. A more severe impact, it seems to be presumed, would have left more evidence, although as argued here, more evidence exists than is often cited.

Some studies have considered a more severe influence of the Exile on the theological and textual tradition. Such attention to the sociological as well as theological impact of the Exile would lead to a re-examination of such tradition-historical themes as: (1) a reading of the Diaspora “court tales” (Daniel, Esther) which pays as much attention to the constantly threatened executions as to the high office of the Jewish characters; (2) the fact that Exile was one of the major theological motivations for the historical work of the Deuteronomic historian (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:46-53) and especially its emphasis on the sins of the monarchy; (3) the “suffering” of the servant in Isa. 40–55 as symbolic of the lifestyle of exile; (4) the theme of messianic restoration (e.g., Zechariah; Haggai; Isa. 9, 11); (5) the tradition of laments for the destruction of Jerusalem as a theological theme of repentance (Lamentations; Ps. 137); and (6) the fact that Babylon passes into the tradition as a symbol of all that is evil (already Jer. 51; ; cf. 1 Pet. 5:13; Rev. 14:8; 17:5; 18:10).

The Exile continued to have serious implications both internally as well as externally, long after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Internally, the separation of the community in 597-586 began to create long-standing divisions (Ezek. 11:14-18; 33:23-27) that persisted after groups of diaspora Jews returned to Palestine under Persian patronage (thus Ezra 3–6 and the conflicts detailed there), particularly when one notes Ezra the priest using sectarian terminology (“sons of the Exile”) to refer to those with diaspora lineage as the true community in Palestine (Ezra 9). Externally, the failure to regain a restored independent Israel under a Davidic ruler gave birth not only to messianic speculation (Zechariah, Haggai) but also to thoughts that the Exile was, in fact, to be a long-term condition for the Jewish people. Arguably, then, the NT should also be read with an eye toward this continued tradition of the impact and significance of the Exile.

Bibliography. P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration. OTL (Philadelphia, 1968); R. McC. Adams, Heartland of Cities (Chicago, 1981); J. L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow (Minneapolis, 1996); R. W. Klein, Israel in Exile. OBT 6 (Philadelphia, 1979); M. A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” Heythrop Journal 27 (1976): 253-72; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 2nd ed. (New York, 1960); D. L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless (Bloomington, Ind., 1989).

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

EXILE

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)