spin

The interesting thing there was that those people who came from Babylon to claim the "empty land" disinherited all the Jewish population which remained in the land.


spin

gstafleu

Did they? Or is this how it was later represented? It could be a politically useful fiction, like the unity of the two kingdoms at the time of David/Solomon.

Gerard

spin

The impression one has from the literature at least was that the returnees barricaded themselves inside Jerusalem and slowly built up the strength of that center. They pitted themselves inside the city against everyone outside. That is if we can go by such sources as Nehemiah's building of the walls. Of course it won't have been that simple, because they needed to commerce with suppliers outside their influence. It would seem though that Jerusalem was just one tiny entity in Palestine, just as Gerizim (Samaria) was, yet both were considered Yahweh centers until John Hyrcanus destroyed Samaria. They were rivals with the same basic religion.

Disinherited may not have been the most accurate word, though not too astray. The returnees were after all an intrusive body into Palestine and thus in a certain conflict with those who were already there. The empty land rhetoric was certainly not based on fact. The Jerusalemites subjugated the Jews of the land around the city. 1 Esdras 5:65f talks about how Jerusalem's enemies could hear their celebrations at the time the temple was being rebuilt.

Of course it was better rhetoric to say that the land was empty (at least of Jews) when they returned.


spin