Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 93

Epigraphical sources from Judah and Samaria in the period of the Achaemenid Empire are relatively rare (Stern 1982; Lemaire 2002b, 2007, 2015; Grabbe 2004: pp. 54–69). Taken together with the evidence from the Egyptian (Porten and Yardeni 1986–1999, quoted as TADAE) and Babylonian diaspora (Pearce 2006, 2011; Pearce and Wunsch 2014; Wunsch and Pearce forthcoming; see also Kratz 2015: pp. 136–153; Lemaire 2015: pp. 37–73), they allow for a spotlight on the political, economic, social, and religious‐historical situation of Judaism during the Persian period and are therefore of special historical value.

Three kinds of epigraphical sources have come down to us from Judah and its vicinity in southern Palestine: stamp impressions (Avigad 1976; Ariel 2000; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011), coins (Meshorer 1982, 1990/91, 2001; Mildenberg 1988, 1996) and ostraca (see Lemaire 2002b, esp. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1996, 2002a, 2006, 2007; Porten and Yardeni 2006; see also Kratz 2015: pp. 181–187; Lemaire 2015: pp. 86–98).

The inscribed stamps, bullae, and seals stem from the Judean economic life and are also attested for external trade (Lemaire 2002b: p. 217). Additionally, they shed light on the political structure (Carter 1999; Kratz 2004: pp. 93–106; Lemaire 2007). They suggest that Yehud was an independent administrative unit or even a province with a governor since the beginning of the Achaemenid period. This conclusion is supported by the inscriptions yh, yhd, or yhwd designating the province, and pḥwʾ designating the governor (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: pp. 77–80). The personal names mentioned do not allow for a chronological order but provide us with a list of governors for the end of the sixth and the fifth century BCE. During the fourth century BCE Bagoas/Bagohi was governor, followed by Yehezkiah; one is attested in the papyri from Elephantine (TADAE A4.7–8 and A4.9) the other on Judean coins (Meshorer 2001: pp. 15–16; Lemaire 2015: p. 95). Both of them were contemporaries of Sanballat and his sons as well as a Hananiah in Samaria (see below). In analogy to Samaria and Elephantine one would expect that the administrative center of Yehud had the status of a “fortress,” but this is attested only in literary sources for Jerusalem (Neh 2:8; 7:2). The papyri of Elephantine mention the “high priest and his colleagues, the priests who are in Jerusalem” (khnʾ rbʾ wknwth khnyʾ zy byrwšlm) as well the “nobles of the Judeans” (ḥry yhwdyʾ) as further officials in Yehud (TADAE A4.7–8; cf. Neh 2:16–18).

The coins provide valuable information about the monetary system during the fourth century BCE and the various cultural influences that manifest themselves in the minting. Amongst those coins two specimens are of special significance as they shed some light on the order of high priests in Jerusalem. Two, if not three, high priests are attested epigraphically: Yohanan (I.) mentioned in the papyri from Elephantine around 400 BCE (TADAE A4.7–8; cf. Neh 12:22); his son and successor Jaddua, who appears on a Judean coin from the second half of the fourth century BCE (Spaer 1986/7; cf. Neh 12:11.22); and Yohanan (II?) on a further Judean coin from the end of the Persian period (Barag 1986/7; Meshorer 2001: p. 14), who is most likely to be identified with Onias I. (Josephus, Ant. 11.347; for a different view, see Lemaire 2015: pp. 94–95, who – following L. Fried – identifies this one with Yohanan I). In light of the epigraphic evidence, taking into account the possibility of longer periods of office, the list in Neh 12:10f., 22.26 appears to be complete (Vanderkam 1991; Kratz 2004: pp. 106–111; Dušek 2007: pp. 549–591). A coin depicting a deity on a winged wheel is of special religious‐historical importance (Meshorer 1982: pp. 21–30); the identification of the deity, however, is disputed (Grabbe 2004: pp. 66–67; Lemaire 2015: p. 93).

The ostraca inform us about the economic situation in Judah and in its vicinity in southern Palestine (Lemaire 2015: pp. 98–122). In addition, they contain a plethora of personal names that help to decipher the ethnic makeup of the population as well as the religious plurality. The theophorous element in the Judean onomasticon seems to be limited to EL and YH/YHW = biblical Yhwh (Lemaire 2002b: p. 217). We also have Aramaic, Phoenician, Edomite, and Arabian personal and divine names (Lemaire 2002b: pp. 224–226; Porten and Yardeni 2006; Kloner and Stern 2007; E. Eshel 2007). In this context an ostracon that mentions the sanctuaries of three deities is of special interest: “House (i.e. Temple) of ‘Uzza,’” “House of Yahu,” and “House of Nabu” (Lemaire 2002a Nr. 283; cf. Lemaire 2001, 2006: pp. 416–417; 2015: pp. 118–119). Apparently the cultic worship of the Judean‐Samarian deity Yahu was not limited to the “place that Yhwh will chose” (Deut. 12) during the fourth century BCE. The historical constellation represented in the epigraphic material appears not to differ from the one of the Judeans at Elephantine (Kratz 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015; Becking 2011: pp. 128–142) or from the (Israelite) worshippers of Yhwh in the Province of Samaria.

At Wadi Daliyeh, 14 km north of Jericho, excavations have yielded – besides several human skeletons – Aramaic papyri, clay bullae, and coins from Samaria (Leith 1997; Gropp 2001; Dušek 2007; Kratz 2015: pp. 165–181; Lemaire 2015: pp. 75–86; on Samaria see also Zengellér 2011; Frey, Schattner‐Rieser, and Schmid 2012; Knoppers 2013; Hensel 2016). How this material arrived at its place of discovery we do not know. It is commonly presumed that refugees transported the material there when they had to flee from the city of Samaria after the failed uprising against Andromachos, the prefect of Alexander the Great. The papyri are not very well preserved but due to their formulaic character they can be fairly well reconstructed. The material stems from the fourth century BCE and more precisely from the time of Artaxerxes II to Darius III. The coins discovered in various places of the Province of Samaria can be dated to the same period (Meshorer and Qedar 1991, 1999; Mildenberg 1996). The papyri are private deeds that first and foremost deal with the selling of slaves, but there is also the deed of a house sale and receipts for the repayment of a loan; in one case we may even have the minutes of a legal dispute. The clay bullae and coins are of interest because of their iconography. Here too, the minting shows different (Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, and Greek) cultural influences and motifs, amongst them representations of deities and naked men. Especially significant is a coin that shows a portrait and inscription of the god Zeus on one side and has a Yahwistic name on the reverse (Lemaire 2002b: p. 223; 2015: pp. 81–82). The rededication of the two temples of Yhwh on Mt. Gerizim and in Jerusalem to sanctuaries of Zeus under Antiochus IV obviously fell on fertile ground.

The onomasticon of the papyri from Samaria as well as of the inscribed bullae and coins attests a similar picture (Lemaire 2002b: pp. 221–222; Dušek 2007: pp. 486–495). Here we have – especially amongst the owners, contractual partners, and slaves – mostly Israelite‐Judean names; next to them and especially amongst the witnesses for the deeds and the officials there exists a plethora of Aramaic, Phoenician, Edomite, Akkadian, and Persian names. Being aware of the problems and pitfalls of the interpretation of such findings we can, nevertheless, say that the situation is reminiscent of the situation in Judah and Elephantine and implies the same historical constellation: we learn of a coexistence and cooperation of several ethnicities within the political structures of the Persian Empire. These ethnicities do not define their identity by a strict separation from each other; rather, they live side by side while at the same time ensuring their own identity. An influence of biblical norms on daily life, for example in matters of slave trade or ethnic separation, cannot be detected in the preserved documents.

The political structure, too, reflected in the epigraphic material reminds us of its Judean neighbors and of Elephantine. The name Samaria is attested in its long form (šmryn/šmrn) as well as in abbreviations (šmr, šm, šn, š). The Persian satrapy of Transeuphrates is the superordinated political unit. Its satrap Mazaios/Masdaj is mentioned by its full name or in abbreviated form (mz) on coins: “Mazday who resides over Ebir‐nari and Cilicia” (mzdy zy ʿl ʿbr nhra wḥlk). Samaria itself had the status of a province (šmryn mdyntʾ) and was ruled by a governor (pḥt šmryn/šmrn). The capital is called a “fortress” (šmryn byrtʾ). In accordance to this terminology, the papyri are written “in the fortress Samaria (that is) in the Province of Samaria.” Coins mention a prefect (sgnʾ) and judges (dynʾ) as subordinate officials. In addition we have several names without a title; here we can assume that they belong to further administrative officers who had the right to mint coins, amongst them maybe even priests as they belong to the ruling elite of a “fortress” – both in the Province of Yehud and in Elephantine.

The direct historical contact with the Judean “fortress Yeb” (Elephantine) is established by the figure of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria who is mentioned in the epigraphic material from Samaria as well as in the papyri from Elephantine. In both cases his sons are mentioned too as they either represent their father or succeeded him in office. There is one son with a Yahwistic name attested on a seal from Samaria (WD 22). Then we have the two sons called Delaiah and Shelemiah in the papyri from Elephantine where they were involved in the rebuilding of the temple in Elephantine (TADAE A4.7–8 and A4.9); they may also be represented by the abbreviations dl and šl on Samarian coins. One of the Samarian papyri from the year 354 BCE also mentions a governor called Hananiah. This attestation helps to reconstruct the list of the governors of Samaria from Darius II down to Darius III: Sanballat and his sons Delaiah, Shelemiah and [?]YHW (Delayahu?) in the first half and Hananiah in the second half of the fourth century BCE. The common assumption of two or three governors bearing the same name – an assumption trying to harmonize the epigraphic material with the account of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:10.19, etc.) and Josephus (AJ 11.302–303) – is superfluous (Kratz 2004: pp. 93–106; Dušek 2007: pp. 516–549, 2012a; followed by Lemaire 2015: p. 83).

To complete the picture let us mention in passing a further corpus of inscriptions, namely Aramaic and Hebrew votive inscriptions discovered on Mt. Gerizim. According to the excavators these inscriptions could date back to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (Magen Misgav, and Tsfania 2004; Magen 2008: pp. 227–242) but they appear more likely to be products of Hellenistic times (Dušek 2012b; De Hemmer Gudme 2013). They are, nevertheless, relevant for the Persian period as they refer to a temple already founded in the fifth century BCE that was the central sanctuary of the worshippers of Yhwh in the Province of Samaria (Magen 2008). Like the persons whom we know from the material from Wadi Daliyeh and from the coins who bear Yahwistic names, so the Yhwh worshippers from Mt. Gerizim were “Samarians” or “Samaritans.” This label – like “Judeans” in the Province of Yehud or in Elephantine – is nothing more than a local, political, and ethnic attribute. In Hellenistic times these Samarian Yahwists occasionally called themselves “Israelites” (Delos) and accepted the Pentateuch, the Torah of Moses, as their holy scripture. Whether this was already the case during the Persian period is a historical problem yet to be solved (Knoppers 2006; Kratz 2007, 2015; Dušek 2012b: pp. 65–118), as is the relationship of the Yahwists represented in the inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim to the Yahwists known to us from epigraphic material of the Achaemenid period.