"Something there is that doesn't love a wall(around Jerusalem)" - Why Would a Simple

City Wall Create Such a Crisis?

L.S. FRIED

Resume: Cet article traite de la question de savoir pourquoi la construction d'unmur autour de la ville de Jerusalem au Se siecle aurait provoque une reactionaussi hostile de la part des fonctionnaires satrapaux (mentionnes dans Esdras 4)et des gouvemeurs des provinces voisines (decrite dans Ie livre de Nehemiey.Bien que la raison principale de cette construction ait ete defensive et ait pu indi-quer l'intention de se revolter, les murs d'enceinte etaient typiques des villes del'epoque perse, meme si elles n'etaient pas frontalieres. En outre, ces murs per-mettaient aux autorites de la ville de controler sa population, et engendraient Iafierte des ses habitants. Ils traduisent l'attention speciale et Ie soin du roi qui aordonne leur construction. C'est ce qui aurait conduit a des accusations de rebel-lion de la part des gouvemeurs voisins.

The attempt to build a city wall around Jerusalem in the 5th centuryBeE netted a strong and hostile reaction from satrapal officials ofBeyond the River (e.g., Ezra 4, Neh. 2:10).1 In the letter sent to King

1. For the historicity of Nehemiah's attempt to build a city wall in Jerusalem (if not his success)see O. Lipschits, "Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status ofJerusalem in the Middle ofthe Fifth Century B.C.E," in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming eds, Judah andthe Judeans in the Persian Period; Winona Lake 2006, pp. 19-52, and literature cited there. Fordiscussion of the identity of those who wrote to King Artaxerxes as described in Ezra 4, see myarticle "The 'Am Ha'aretz in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration," in Lipschits-Oemingeds, ibid; pp. 123-145, and studies referred to there.

Trans 39, 2010

80 TRANSEUPHRATENE

Artaxerxes I of Persia satrapal officials writer'"Now may it be known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the

walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royalrevenue will be damaged" (Ezra 4: 13).

To pay neither tribute, tax, nor corvee labor to the king is tantamountto rebellion. The officials writing to Artaxerxes accuse the Judeans ofusing the city wall to avoid the authority of the king. We read the samereaction in the book of Nehemiah. There Sanballat, the governor ofSamaria, accuses Nehemiah of using the city wall to resist the authorityof Persia, to enable Judah to become independent, and to become king ofJudea rather than Artaxerxes:

"Sanballat ... sent his servant to me with an open letter in his hand.In it was written, It is reported among the nations - and Geshem also

says it - that you and the Jews intend to rebel; that is why you are buil-ding the wall; and according to this report you wish to become their king"(Neh. 6:5-6).

Why this fearful response to a wall around Jerusalem? In both the let-ter to Artaxerxes reported in Ezra 4 and in Sanballat's letter to Nehemiahreported in his memoir the Judeans are accused of rebelling.' In bothcases the accusation is based only on the re-fortification of the city wall.We read ofa similar event in the works ofJosephus (Ant 19: 326-7), thisone occurring much later, however, in the Roman period in the reign ofClaudius:

"Agrippa fortified the walls of Jerusalem on the side of the New Cityat the. public expense, increasing both their breadth and height, and hewould have made them too strong for any human force had not Marsus,the governor of Syria, reported by letter to Claudius Caesar what wasbeing done. Claudius, suspecting that a revolution was on foot, earnestlycharged Agrippa in a letter to desist from the building of the walls; andAgrippa thought it best not to disobey"."

In this case too, the Syrian legate Marsus whose authority included theprovince of Judah, wrote to the emperor to protest the fact that the Judeangovernor, King Agrippa, was rebuilding and refortifying the walls aroundJerusalem. The emperor ordered that the building process be stopped. Inthis case the apprehension is understandable. At the time various eastern

2. I have argued elsewhere that the letter is genuine: 'The Artaxerxes Correspondence of Ezra4, Nehemiah's Wall, and Persian Provincial Administration," in A.M. Maier et al. eds, 'Go Out andStudy the Land' (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor oj HananEshel, JSJ.S, Leiden, in press. The narrative background within which the letter is embedded is nothistorical, however. For discussion of the historiography of this passage, see my "Ezra's Use of Do-cuments in the Context of Hellenistic Rules of Historiography", in I. Kalimi ed., A New Perspectiveon Ezra-Nehemiah: SIOry and History, Literature and Interpretation, Winona Lake, in press, as wellas my "Deus ex Machina: The Role of the Prophetic Voice in Ezra 5: I," in M.l. Boda and L.M. WrayBeal eds, Prophets and Prophecy in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake, in press, as wellas the articles referred to there. i

I3. J.L. Wright, Rebuilding[ldentity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers, BZA W

348, Berlin 2005, pp. 35-44, 3~-44, 124-7, argues throughout that both the Artaxerxes correspon-dence in Ezra 4 and the antagonisms reported in the book of Nehemiah are late and tendentious andnot appropriate for historical reconstruction, I don't accept this interpretation. See my article in Maieret al. eds., ibid. I

4. Translation by L.H. Feldman, Loeb Classical Library.

!

L.S. FRIED 81

provinces of the Roman Empire (including Parthia and Armenia) wereplanning to rebel against Rome. Josephus explains Agrippa's rebuilt forti-fications as due to the latter's concern that Judah would become Rome'smajor defensive line when those neighboring provinces started to rebel.Even so, it was natural for the Legate and the Emperor to assume insteadthat Agrippa's fortifying the wall indicated that Judah was preparing tojoin the rebels.

Purpose of City WallsWould this be the natural assumption in the case of Nehemiah's forti-

fying the walls as well? Admittedly, the primary purpose of city walls isdefense, but did fortified city walls always reveal an intention to rebel? IfNehemiah did succeed in fortifying Jerusalem' it would not have beenthe only fortified city in the Persian empire. The Hebrew term :l'~Jandthe Aramaic Nn1~Jare widely attested on Persian period inscriptions andalways identify fortified cities within the empire." Besides the numerousreferences to fortified towns in the Behistun inscription, the term is ap-plied in other Persian period inscriptions to Sardis/ Xanthus.f Meydanci-kale in Cilicia,9 Samaria, 10 as well as Syene and Elephantine." The con-

5. 1. Finkelstein ("Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehe-miah," JSOT 32/2,2008, pp. 501-520; id., "Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books ofEzra and Nehemiah," PEQ 140/1, 2008, pp.7-16; id., "Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Re-joinder," JHS 9, 2009, Article 24) argues that the wall that is usually attributed to Nehemiah is Hel-lenistic, but this is disputed (G. Barkay, "Additional View of Jerusalem in Nehemiah's Days[Hebrew],' in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 2, 2008, pp. 48-54; O.Lipschits, "Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations," JHS 9,2009, Article 20;E. Mazar, "The Wall That Nehemiah Built," BAR 3512, 2009, pp. 24-33,66; D. Ussishkin, "The Bor-ders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period," in Lipschits-Oeming eds, op. cit. In. IJ,pp. 147-(66).

6. A. Lemaire and H. Lozachmeur, "Birah/Birta' en Arameen,' Syr. 64, 1987, pp. 261-266; id.,

"La Birta en Mediterranee Orientale," Sem. 43-44, 1995, pp. 75-78; C. Tuplin, "The Administrationof the Achaemenid Empire," in 1. Carradice ed., Coinage and Administration in the Athenian andPersian Empires, British Archaeological Reports International Series 343, Oxford 1987, pp. 109-166;D. Bodi, Jerusalem a l'Epoque Perse, Paris 2002, pp. 37-48.

7. P. Kahle and F. Somer, "Die Iydisch-ararnaische Bilingue," KIF 1,1927, pp. 18-86.8. A. Dupont-Sommer, "La Stele Trilingue Du Letoon: L'inscription Arameenne,' in H.

Metzgered., Fouilles de Xanthos 6: La Stele Trilingue Du Letoon, Paris 1979, pp. 136-137.9. A. Lemaire and H. Lozachrneur, "Les Inscriptions Arameennes,' in A. Davesne and F. Laro-

che-Traunecker eds, Giilnar I: Le Site de Meydancikkale, Paris 1998, pp. 307-314, esp. p. 308, ins-cription I, line 3.

10. F.M. Cross, "The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri," BA 26,1963, pp. 110-121; id., "Papyriof the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh," in D.N. Friedman and J.e. Greenfield eds., New Direc-tions in Biblical Archaeology, Garden City 1971, pp. 45-69; id., "The Papyri and Their Historical Im-plications," in P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp eds., Discoveries in the Wadi Ed-Ddliyeh, AASOR 41 1974,

Trans 39, 2010

82 TRANSEUPHRATENE

notation in all these is of a fortified garrisoned city. It is telling that allthese sites were located on the frontier of the Achaemenid Empire. Whatwould have been the purpose of fortifying cities within the empire thatwere not on a frontier and so were not likely to experience military at-tack? The sheer labor and expense involved - even if completed in only52 dap as Nehemiah claims (6:15)! - implies a compelling reason tobuild, 2 but what would it have been? Defensive walls are seeminglybuilt in order to withstand attacks from hostile neighboring states. Wouldthis have been the case for states in the middle of the Achaemenid Empi-re where there were no neighboring states?

Nehemiah's city was not the only one deep within the Empire to havehad defensive walls however. In fact, the capital cities of Judah's neigh-boring provinces were all stout fortresses complete with garrisons. Thecapital city of Samaria (also called Samaria) was one of the largest, mostprosperous, and among the best fortified cities in the Southern Levant du-ring the Persian period." K.M. Kenyon states repeatedly in her excava-tion report of Samaria that the Israelite exterior casement defensive wallcontinued in use into the Hellenistic periods, and so was certainly in useduring the Persian period. According to the excavation report, "the twomain walls of defense which were executed in this [casement] style re-mained in being throughout the Israelite period and for some centuries 1a-ter.,,14 Further, when describing Samaria during the Persian period K.M.Kenyon's report states: "Enclosure Walls: As will be seen, it is probablythat the Israelite defensive and enclosure walls remained in use with re-pairs and additions down to the second century B.C.,,15 Again, with refe-rence to the lower enclosure defensive walls, the report states that "theearliest building operations were devoted to strengthening the Israelitedefensive walls by the construction of a number of massive towers alongit. [One of these towers] was built astride theIsraelite middle terrace wall573, and this wall apparently continued in use with it. ... It is obviousthat such very strong towers must have been built in connection with animportant defensive system.':" A major part of this "important defensivesystem" was wall 573, the Israelite wall mentioned above.17 The reportstates further that "the first major alteration (as far as the excavations

pp. 4-18; D.M. Gropp, "Wadi Daliyeh 11: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi DaJiyeh," in E. Tov ed.,DJD 28, Oxford 2001, pp. vii-xiii, 1-123.

II. See the many references in the documents in B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Ara-maic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Volumes I - IV newly Copied, Edited and Translated Into He-brew and English, Winona Lake 1986.

12_ J. D. Tracy, City Walls: The Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective, Studies in Early Mo-dern History, Cambridge 2000, p. 3.

13_ E. Stem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, New York 2001, p. 424; A. Zertal, "TheProvince of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III)," in J. Blenkinsopp andO. Lipschits eds, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake 2003, pp. 377-412; G. Knoppers, "Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period," in Lipschits-Oemingeds,op. cit. (n. I), pp. 265-289.

14. J.W. Crowfoot et al., The Buildings of Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste), Reports of the Work oftheJoint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935 1, London 1942, p. 7.

15. Ibid., p. 116.16_ Ibid., p. 117.17. Ibid.

L.S. FRIED 83

have ascertained) to the defenses of the city took place in the second cen-tury B.C.,,18 Thus, the Israelite defensive wall system continued to be thedefensive wall system of the city of Samaria without alteration, and withcontinued repairs, up until the Hasmonian period. Samaria had strong ca-sement defensive walls throughout the Persian period.

We also know from the Wadl ed-Daliyeh papyri that Samaria was abiriih. in the Persian period, and so was a walled garrisoned city .19 Addi-tional evidence that the city was garrisoned and that Sanballat comman-ded troops is offered in the book of Nehemiah itself (Neh. 3:33-34):

"Now when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he wasangry and greatly enraged, and he mocked the Jews. He said in the pre-sence of his associates and of the army of Samaria: 'What are these fee-ble Jews doing?'" .

Geshem or Gashrnu the Arab (Neh. 2:19; 4:1; 6:1-9) was king of theNorth Arabic Qedarites mentioned numerous times in the Bible (see esp.Jer. 49:28-33). By the time of Nehemiah, the Qedarite kingdom had ex-panded north to the southern border of Judah and had its capital atLachish." Lachish Stratum I was built in the mid-Persian period after asettlement gap of about 150 years." The Persian period city possessed anewly built fortified palace (called a "residency" by the excavator) and anew temple. Its city wall and gate were the restored and reused fortifica-tions of the Late Iron Age Level 11. The fortified palace and refortifiedcity wall and gate suggest that Lachish was a Persian administrative cen-ter, a biriih, and had soldiers garrisoned within it.22

Tobiah the Servant the Ammonite was likely the Governor of the Per-sian province of Ammon.f The Tobiads have long been associated with afortress at 'Traq al-Amir, in Jordan, situated 17 km west of the moderncity of Amman and 29 km east of Jericho. P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp hadfound no evidence of habitation between Iron Age I, the 11th century, and

18. Ibid., p. 118.19. See items cited in n. 10; Knoppers, in Lipschits-Oeming eds, loc. cit. (n. 13), pp. 265-269.20. A. Lemaire, "Un nouveau roi arabe de Qedar dans I'inscription de I'autel it encens de

Lakish," RB 81,1974, pp. 63-72; id., "Histoire et Administration de la Palestine it l'epoque Perse," inE.-M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire eds, La Palestine a l'epoque Perse, Paris 1994, pp, 24-30.

21. A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, "Redating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Poli-cy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy," in Lipschits-Oerning eds, op. ciL (n. 1), pp. 167-197; D. Ussisbkin, "Lachish," in E. Stern ed., NEAEHL 3, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 910-911; O. Tufnell,The Iron Age (Lachish - Tell Ed Duweir) Ill, London 1953, pp. 98-99, 112.

22. A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, ibid., date the "residency" to the first half of the fourth century,rather than to the mid-fifth as O. Tufnell does. The residency was built on pits and debris layers con-taining earlier Persian-period pottery, suggesting Stratum T, Persian-period occupation on the premi-ses which is earlier than the so-called "residency." The city wall and gate continued throughout theduration of the Stratum I city.

23. B. Mazar, 'The Tobiads," IEJ7/3, 1957, pp. 137-145,229-238; r.w Lapp, "'Iraq el-Emir,"in NEAEflL 2, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 646-649.

Trans 39,2010

84 TRANSEUPHRATENE

the Hellenistic period, but in a recent investigation, C.-H.C. Ji has foundthat this conclusion cannot be sustained.24 Stratum V, which the Lappsdate- to Iron I, contained 1.5 meter thick fortification walls, buildingwalls with paved floors, drains, and two beehive ovens." The Lapps datethis stratum to Iron I because of the many typical collared-rim storagejars, but the particular type of jar that theyfound are actually common inIron II and early Persian period contexts in over half a dozen Jordaniansites." This is also true of the typical whole-mouth craters found therewhich are common in Iron II and early Persian period Jordanian sitesYJi's reevaluation of the Lapps's results shows that there was continuousoccupation from late Iron II into the Hellenistic period, and that Persiandefensive walls and public buildings continued in use throughout the Hel-lenistic period."

Why were these cities deep within the Achaemenid empire fortified?There would have been no defensive purpose. City walls served as asource of civic pride from earliest times until the airplane finally madethem obsolete during World War 1. In the medieval period pictures oftheir enclosing walls adorned a city's seals, the capitals of its Romanes-que churches, medieval Italian frescoes, and in the early modem period,woodcuts, engravings, and etchings.i" From hoary antiquity, moreover,we have the paean to Gilgamesh, extolled for building the wall aroundUruk:"He had the wall ofUruk built, the sheepfoldOf holiest Eanna, the pure treasury.See its wall, which is like a copper band.Survey its battlements, which no one else can match.Take the threshold, which is from time immemorial,Approach Eanna, the home of Ishtar,Which no future king nor any man will ever match!Go up on to the wall ofUruk and walk around!Inspect the foundation platform and scrutinize the brickwork!Testify that its bricks are baked bricks,And that the Seven Counselors laid its foundations.One square mile is city, one square mile is orchards, one square mile isclay pits, as well as the open ground ofIshtar's temple.Three square miles and the open ground comprise Uruk.,,3o

The ability of a city wall to convey pride to its inhabitants is abun-

24. C.-H.C. Ji, "A New Look at the Tobiads in 'Iraq al-Amir," Liber Annuus 48, 1998, pp. 417-440, Plates 19,20. See also, id., '''[raq al-'AmTr and the Hellenistic Settlements in Central and Nor-thern Jordan," in Studies in the History and Archaeology oj Jordan VII, Amman 2001, pp. 379-389. Ithank L. Herr for calling C.-H. Ji's work to my attention.

25. Ibid. 1998, p. 421; P. w. Lapp, "The Second and Third Campaigns at 'Araq el-Emir,"BASOR 171, 1963, p. 13.

26. Ji, loco cit. (n. 24) 1998, with references.27. Ibid., p. 424.28. Ibid., p. 425.

29. K.L. Reyerson, "Medieval Walled Space: Urban Development VS. Defense," in J.D. Tracyed., City Walls, Cambridge 2000, p. 88.

30. Gilgamesh 1:9-21. translation S. Dalley. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation. The Flood.Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford 1989, p. 50

L.S. FRIED 8S

dantly clear from this description of Uruk.31 It is also apparent in thestory of Nehemiah's wall-building project. Pride in a city's walls is por-trayed first and foremost by the shame that Nehemiah feels when he isconfronted with the state of Jerusalem's walls and hears that they arepierced through and its gates burnt with fire (Neh. 1:4).

"When I heard these words I sat down and wept, and mourned fordays, fasting and praying before the God of Heaven."

This shame is also expressed in Nehemiah's words to the populacewhen he arrives in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:17):

"Then I said to them, "You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalemlies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusa-lem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace."

Pride in the walls is also expressed in the city's celebration upon theircompletion (Neh. J 2:27,43):

"Now at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought out theLevitcs in all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem to celebrate the de-dication with rejoicing, with thanksgivings and with singing, with cym-bals, harps, and lyres ... They offered great sacrifices that day and rejoi-ced, for God had made them rejoice with great joy; the women and chil-dren also rejoiced. The joy of Jerusalem was heard far away."

H. Dey suggests that it was civic pride, not defense, that led to theerection of city walls in north-central Gaul beginning in or shortly after275 CE.32 Toward the end of the third century CE the Roman empire hadbeen restored, and the defenses along the frontiers had been improved tothe point that interior Gaul was far less susceptible to "barbarian" attacksthan it had been for decades.f So why were city walls built only then? H.Dey finds that city walls represented imperial power, as well as an indica-tion of the emperor's patron?-fle and active concern for these cities in thefar-flung comers of empire.' The more impressive the walls, the moreimpressive and the more concerned the emperor appeared in the eyes ofthe city's inhabitants.

Besides bestowing civic pride on the inhabitants, walls also demarca-ted the land belonging to the city's ruler - sometimes on a grand scale. Inwhat is now northern Nigeria, for example, lie the many walled cities of

31 It is also clear from the: poem how tile area wilhin the city walls was laid our. Not all of itcontained buildings, but a quarter of it was used as orchards (presumably date palm) and anotherquarter for clay, the primary building and writing material. We may extrapolate from this and sub-slime vegetable gardens along with the orchards, and industrial areas along with the clay pits, as is in-dicated in a second millennium map of Nippur (E.C. Stone, "The Development of Cities in AncientMesopotamia," in J.M. Sasson ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East I, Peabody 1995, p. 240).

32. H. Dey, "Art, Ceremony, and City Walls: The Aesthetics of Imperial Resurgence in theLate Roman West," Journal of Late Antiquity 3, 20JO, pp. 3-37.

33. Ibid., pp. 5-6.

34. Ibid, p. 24.

Trans 39, 2010

86 TRANSEUPHRATENE

the Rausa states." Each city was the capital of a city-state, controllingthe area around it. In the mid 1820's, the wall of one of the Rausa cities,Kano, was 24 km in length, over 9 meters high, with a dry ditch on its in-ner and outer sides. It had 15 gates, with guardhouses flanking each. Theactual city of Kano occupied maybe half of the walled area, with threeother villages also enclosed within the walls, while numerous other vil-lages were scattered outside of it. There were several water sourceswithin the walls and enough vacant farm land to grow com for the peopleenclosed as well as for the people in the surrounding villages if neces-sary.

The walls of the Rausa cities not only demarcated land, but they de-marcated the extent of the ruler's authority and projected the area of hislaws and justice. City walls enabled him to exercise control over those li-ving within the walls in a way he could not do over those living outsideof them. Although nominally his authority might extend to the villageslying beyond the walls, there would be no question of his authority overthose living within them. Every trader with the Hausa towns who enteredthe walled settlement, for example, had to pay a tax to do business in thetown.i" This tax on foreign traders privileged native manufacturing andencouraged local production. Walls could thus be used to regulate andcontrol the people within the enclosed settlements, to keep out undesira-bles, and to keep the population inside. In one town, Harar in easternEthiopia, the gates were closed at nights and carefully guarded, with noone being allowed to leave until dawn."

Harar is especially interesting for our purposes, since the people thereconsidered themselves an ethnic group distinct from the surrounding peo-ples, having their own unique language and culture." G. Connah suggeststhat the enclosing wall gave the Harar community a discrete physical andpsychological identity and strengthened its sense of group solidarity. Tohim, the psychological effect of enclosure, and the ensuing creation of acontained community, was what was important for the Harar people."

Similarly, we see city walls enabling Nehemiah to control the inhabi-tants of Jerusalem in ways that he would not have been able to do other-wise. As soon as the walls are completed and the gates and bars set up,Nehemiah appoints his brother Hananiah, the commander of the garrison,to have charge over the city, ordering him to make sure that the walls andgates are well guarded, shut at night, and not opened again until the sun isup (Neh. 7:2-3). This means not only that no one could come in, but alsothat no one could go out. As in the Rausa communities described above,walls enable Nehemiah to exact taxes not only from Jerusalem's inhabi-tants but also from all who would do business in the city. He has the lea-ders of the community sign a pledge to bring in to the temple a third-shekel yearly, as well as the baked bread, the grain offering, the animalsfor the regular burnt offerings and for the sabbath and festival offerings,

35. G. Connah, "Contained Communities in Tropical Africa," in Tracy ed., op. cit. (n. 29), pp.26-27.

36. Ibid., p. 42.

37. Ibtd., p. 43.38. R.F. Burton, First Footsteps in East Africa; or an Exploration ofHarar, London 1856, p.

325.39. Connah,loc. cil. (n. 35), pp. 44A5.

i.s. FRIED 87

wood for the wood offerings, the first fruits of their livestock and of theirbodies, in addition to the tithes (Neh, 10:32-39).40 To manage this inco-me, Nehemiah appoints treasurers over the storehouses (Neh. 13:13). Itis the presence of city walls which hems in the populace that enables Ne-hemiah to enforce these agreements at least upon the people living withinthe city. .

That Nehemiah uses these walls to control who comes ill and whostays out is evident. He prevents the Tyrians who live in Jerusalem, butwho bring in fish and other merchandise for sale on the sabbath, from en-tering the city (13:16). To keep them out, Nehemiah bars the gates on Fri-day afternoon, and opens them again only after the sabbath has ended Sa-turday night. The Tyrians and the other merchants are forced to spend theperiod out of doors, sleeping against the wall (Neh. 13:20).41

Although the city walls seem to provide Nehemiah with opportunitiesfor controlling the people in ways that he may not have expected, we maytake him seriously and assume that the main reason he wants to rebuildJerusalem's city walls is as he says, to turn its shame into pride. To thisend, he also forcibly populates the city (Neh. 11:1). Nehemiah's goal is toturn the city into a proper biriih, a functioning provincial capital, comple-te with a diverse population, a fortress for garrisoning soldiers, and a go-vernor's mansion (Neh. 2:8).42 As all the archaeological evidence shows,however, he did not succeed in repopulatin~ the city and it remainedsparsely populated until the Hellenistic period. 3

Rivalry among Neighboring Governors

Why should satrapal officials and the governors roundabout Judahhave reacted so negatively to Nehemiah's wall-building efforts whentheir own cities were similarly fortified, and when there were so manypurposes for a city wall beyond defense? A. AIt has proposed that Judahwas originally part of the province of Samaria, and with Nehemiah's arri-val Samaria lost much of its power and status." The numerous seals andbullas with the names of governors of Judah prior to Nehemiah's arrivalhas rightly led to the rejection of this hypothesis, however." K.G.

40. 1.S. Fried, "A Greek Religious Association in Second Temple Judah? A Comment onNehemiah 10," Trans 30, 2005, pp. 75-93, esp. p. 83.

41. For an interesting discussion of the passage see D. Edelman, "Tyrian Trade in Yehud UnderArtaxerxes I: Real or Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?", in Lipschits-Oeming eds, pp,207-246, as well as the commentaries.

42. L.S. Fried, "The Political Struggle of Fifth Century Judah," Trans 24, 2002, pp. 9-21.43. See studies cited in n. 5.44. A. Alt, "Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung Des Judentums," in id. ed., Kleine Schriften

Zur Geschichte Des Volkes Israel 2, Munich 1953, pp. 316-337.

45. For a discussion see 1. S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relationsin the Persian Empire, BJSUCSD 10, Winona Lake 2004, pp. 187-188.

Trans 39, 20ID

88 TRANSEUPHRA TENE

Hoglund sees in Nehemiah's arrival a new status for Jerusalem and Judahbecause, he argues, city walls were unusual in the Achaemenid Empire."We have seen above that city walls were not so unusual, but even so Iagree that the cause of the antagonism, the cause of the crisis around Ju-dean wall-building efforts, was very likely rivalry nonetheless." Herodo-tus is replete with examples of the jealousy and competition that existedamong neighboring satraps (Herod. III:l27).

Rivalry, jealousy, and brinkmanship among satraps was common andwas a major cause of both the Ionian Revolt against Darius, which lastedover seven years, and of the so-called Great Satrap's Revolt against Arta-xerxes II.48 The Great Satrap's Revolt tellingly reveals the effect of thepersistent rivalry and competition among satraps. In 367, Ariobarzanes,satrap of Dascylium, was commended for effectively increasing the pres-tige and power of the Great King. He had cemented Persian control ofthesouthern Troad and had extended it across the straight into the Europeanportions of the Hellespont. This positive view of Ariobarzanes changedthe next year, however, when Autophradates became satrap of neighbo-ring Lydia. The latter did not take kindly to the southern Troad, traditio-nally part of Lydia, being in the hands of Dascylium, and said a fewwords to the king about all the land in Ariobarzanes' possession. Theking accordingly declared Ariobarzanes a rebel, and ordered Autophra-dates by land and Mausolus by sea to arrest him and to bring him to theking to be crucified."

The rivalry and competition among the satraps of Asia Minor is alsovisible among the governors of the provinces of Beyond the River. Ac-cording to the funerary inscription of Eshmunazor King of Sidon, theGreat King added land to the borders of Sidon in return for favors thatEshmunazor had done:

"The Lord of Kings [i.e., the Achaemenid ruler] gave to me [i.e., toSidon] Dor and Jaffa, the mighty lands of Dagon, which are in the Plainof Sharon, in accordance with the important deeds that I did. We addedthem to the borders of the country so that they would belong to Sidonforever. "50

The lands that the Persian king had given to Sidon must have beentaken from someone else. This transference of land from one provincialgovernor to another - as from one satrap to another - could only have re-sulted in competition and rivalry among them.

This situation is similar to that described in the book of Nehemiah and

46. K.G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions ofEzra and Nehemiah, SBL.DS 125, Atlanta 1992, pp. 210-211.

47. For further discussion of the internecine rivalry among local satraps, governors, and popula-tions, see now my article "Because of the Dread Upon Them - Fear and Uncertainty in the PersianEmpire," in J. Curtis and St. J. Simpson eds, The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art andSociety in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London 2010, pp. 457-469.

48. M. Weiskopf, "The So-Called 'Great Satraps' Revolt' 366-360," Historia: Einzelschriften63, 1989, pp. 42-43; P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: a History of the Persian Empire, WinonaLake 2002', pp. 656-675 (with references).

49. Weiskopf, ibid.50. ANET, p. 662; cf. J. Elayi, Sidon. cite autonome de l'Empire perse, Paris 1990', pp. 235-

243; id., "La chronologie de fa dynastie sidonienne d>:'E rnurrazor", Trans 27, 2004, pp. 9-27 ("themighty comlands").

i.s. FRIED 89

in Ezra 4. According to Ezra 4:21, after the initial accusation ofrebelIion,the king ordered Rehum to make the Judeans stop work on Jerusalem'scity wall, an order backed up with force of arms (Ezra 4:23). It is onlyupon receiving the order from the king (Ezra 4:18-19,21-22) that Rehumcould have sent soldiers in to stop the work. This is not something hecould have done without royal authority. What soldiers would he haveused? Just as Artaxerxes II ordered the armies of the neighboring satrapsto attack Ariobarzanes, the presumed rebel, so Rehum would have sent inthe armies of the neighboring provinces to bring the wall-builders to jus-tice. In Nehemiah's case, the neighboring provinces were those of San-ball at, Tobiah, and Gashmu the Arab. According to Nehemiah 4:11:

"Our enemies said, 'They will not know or see anything before wecome upon them and kill them and stop the work'."

The Artaxerxes correspondence explains the attack on Jerusalemwhich Nehemiah reports in Nehemiah 4. The crisis attendant upon Ju-dean efforts to rebuild the city wall was spearheaded by accusations of re-bellion, accusations which can best be understood in light of the intenserivalry which can be presumed to have existed continuously amongneighboring satraps and among neighboring governors. In contrast towhat Nehemiah implies (Neh. 4:1-2), neighboring armies would not haveattacked Jerusalem out of their own whim or from personal hostility toNehemiah's wall-building efforts. Sanballat, Tobiah, and Gashmu theArab would not have amassed troops against Judah or JerusaJem withoutthe express order of the king. Their attack on Nehemiah can be under-stood as a result of royal orders in response to continued allegations of re-bellion.

Trans 39, 2010