The land of Judah still had people on it during the Babylonian Exile

Barstad's book is out of print, but here is a review article of his book:

The Myth of the Empty Land. By HANS M. BARSTAD. Symbolae Osloensis Facs. Supplement no. 28. Oslo: SCANDINAVIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1996. Pp. 113. $25.

This monograph grew out of the author's "interest in the question of the Babylonian provenance of chapters 40-55 in the Book of Isaiah," basically a literary problem, which soon led him to consider the historical and socio-religious problem of how to assess "life in Judah in the years following the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C." (Introduction). The term "myth" in the title of his book sets the tone for the author's ever so often stressed aim to disprove the "fairly negative view of biblical scholars" that after the conquest of Jerusalem Judah became an "empty land," denuded of its population and bereft of spiritual leaders, in sum a tabula rasa in respect to religious and cultural creativity. This negative view is rooted in nineteenth-century scholarship, but its impact "may be felt strongly also today" (p. 15). It derives from an uncritical reliance on biblical reports of the practically total exiling of the Judaean population in the wake of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the land, and the ensuing transfer of the center of Jewish life from Jerusalem to Babylonia (p. 17). The stricture is well taken. But in his attempts to drive home the point, the author overstresses the presumed adherence of contemporary scholarship to that approach, setting up windmills against which to go to war. [1]

Barstad sets out to rectify these conclusions, which are almost exclusively based on biased literary sources, by having recourse first and foremost to "objective" historical and archaeological evidence concerning "Judah During the 'Exile' Period" (as stated in the subtitle of his study) that came to the attention of scholars only in the twentieth century. In his "Preliminary Remarks" (pp. 13-23) he offers a compressed summary of the main thrust of his investigation, which he recapitulates and underpins in his "Conclusions" (pp. 77-82), at the culmination of a detailed discussion.

In a first chapter on the "Biblical Evidence" (pp. 25-45), the author deals with the Palestinian scene. This is followed by a presentation of information gained from "The Archaeology of Judah during the 'Exilic' Period" (pp. 47-55), and a concise survey of "The Evidence from Transjordan" (pp. 57-60). He then turns his attention to the exilic community by bringing under scrutiny the relation of "The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Judab" (p. 61).

The author does not subscribe to Torrey's characterization of the biblical reports on the exile in 586 B.C.E. and the return to the land of a considerable component of the citizenry of Judah after 586 B.C.E. as pure fiction, but cautiously deems them "not to be unfounded" (p. 23). However, at the same time he stamps as an overstatement the "scholarly misconception of exile, return and restoration" (p. 21). In the past, he says, too much interest was concentrated on the exilic community, whereas little attention was given to the question: ... "

LS

It appears Barstad is on the periphery of the mainstream regarding the desolation period and is strongly anti-Biblical. Still it would be good to see something specific archaeologically upon the conclusions of a continued occupation exists.

Thanks for the reference.

Here's another partial review I found:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3268055

ls

I read up on this and it turned out to be nothing more than one person in particular, Barstad, desperately wanting to paint a different Babylonian policy of leaving some in the land rather than deporting everyone.

The archaeology, particularly at Mizpah, which seemed to be a center of pottery making, likewise was inconclusive. The earl NB pottery was mixed with the Persian pottery. This does not contradict a period of 70 years of abandonment. So whether there was abandonment for 70 years for cities not destroyed by Babylon is inconclusive.

Here are some quotes on the topic you run into:

"On the other hand we have a stratum apparently established in 585 that continued for approximately 150 yars to the latter part of the fifth century. Because there was no destruction during this time, and because most of the Stratum 2 buildings are so poorly preserved, we cannot establih a clear idea of the material culture of any single sub-phase of this period. We are left with a collage of objects mixed together that covers the entire life of the stratum. Jeffrey R. Zorn "

Meaning they can't tell whether or not there was an occupation interruption or not.

Obed writes in his conclusion: "In conclusion, the mythographers have failed to present real, clear, unequivocal documental evidence to substantiate the claim concerning "A society where life went on after 585 B.C. pretty much in the same way as it did before the arrival of nebuchadnezzar's armies." Although they cannot prove it, for them it is a fact to be invented. Indications and remains (Barstad 1996:78) bsed on dubious interpretation are not evidence or proof. The observations that I have presented above allow us to conclude that "The Myth of the Empty Land" is not only unproved but also unnecessary."

The above are from a rare publication of those who bothered discussing it sometime go, with Barstad leading the discussion. The Library at Austin University has the entire panel discussion if you want to read all the discussion:

http://catalog.lib.utexas.edu/search~S29?/Xbarstad+hans&searchscope=29&SORT=D/Xbarstad+hans&searchscope=29&SORT=D&SUBKEY=barstad%20hans/1%2C5%2C5%2CB/frameset&FF=Xbarstad+hans&searchscope=29&SORT=D&3%2C3%2C

So in conclusion, those cities not destroyed by Babylon, like Mizpah, how the level of the pre-Babylonian pottery extending and mixing in with the Persian Period. That means the pottery there could have been abandoned for 70 years and then reused at the time of the Persian Period. That is, the 150-year level could have easily had a 70-year interruption that would not hvae been evident by any pottery shift or any evident intermediate pottery during the exilic period.

In other words, during the exilic period if there were active people and cultures going on and a new pottery started to show up during this period and it was found at Mizpah, one could reasonably presume that Mizpah was active during this transition period. But since there is no pottery change during this period, the pottery found there dates to the early NB Period, mixed with the Persian Persian, which is consistent with the early pottery being resused after a 70-year absence, with the newest pottery introduced being the Persian pottery.

So ultimately at best it is inconclusive these cities were still occupied and did not experience a 70-year hiatus. In addition, we do have the evidence at Ashkelon which was destroyed and showed abandonment 75-80 years ending in the Persian Period. So at least for that site, there is a direct confirmation of what the Bible says. Thus when we are able to put our hands on something absolute, it supports the Bible.

LS

Hi Lars,

The reference you gave simply went to a well-known book. Is that what you meant by a discussion?

Other sources include:

“Leading Captivity Captive”, ed. Grabbe, which includes the well-known article by Carroll and a response to Barstad (can be read online). Other sources can be located by searching on Carroll’s name.

There is a listing (that I have not pursued) at: http://www.cjconroy.net/bib/hist-neobab.htm

Schniedewind’s books, such as “Society and the Promise to David” (such as p. 99) are instructive, although Biblically-based rather than pure archaeology.
“Ezekiel and Ethics of Exile” by Mann appears to be in a similar vein (pp. 55-59 for example).

As you indicate, you are aware of the 600 page book by Lipschits and Blenkinsopp, which can still be purchased second-hand.
------------------
The Judaean people exiled by Babylon were the upper echelon of society, the people who had adopted written communication. The urban Judahites at Jerusalem were intent on centralising religion at Jerusalem, whereas the agrarian populace, including the power group known as the People of the Land, were vehemently opposed to the urban monotheists.

The records we have are the propaganda documents produced by the religious and powerful urban elite; and one can see the hand of Jehoiachin in some of Jeremiah’s material.

This animosity between these religious exiles and the People of the Land is clearly shown in Ezra’s words and behaviour.

http://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Exile.html

speaks of “two poles of Jews during the Exile”, one group being the People of the Land (am hares).

In the process of time, subsequent editors, with their agendas of religious power, amended the texts, which had to be copied because of the nature of the material they were written on. These deliberate (and accidental) changes further cloud the situation.

In addition, the sense afforded to “history” held by the Ancient Judaean communities was not the same as ours. They did not mind when certain adjustments were made to stories of the past, since their objective was not to produce a pristine record of the past but to use stories that influenced their own immediate community. This attitude was not unique to them.

For reasons such as these, I believe it is futile to base the foundation of one’s faith on the words produced by those ancient communities, unless one had been able to read their words through the concepts of their culture.

Doug

Hi Doug,

A lot of what I read reflect that academic view of the peoples and revisions to relect their psychological needs by manipulating the history.

But I wonder how much you think the pagans revised their chronology for religious or political reasons?

For instance, it is not hard to see that Xerxes, after his invasion of Greece and his becoming a laughingstock, had reason to seek a new public identity. The double names of the kings afforded his, thus he fakes his death and the death of his son Darius II in order to emerge as a new king, his own successor. Thus Xerxes and Artaxerxes are actually the same king. Covering for this led to distortions in the Persian Period, including later revisions of the astronomical texts which is now in place being used by archaeology.

Generally, this would not make for much of a difference, but so much digging has been done now in the Levant, using 14C and pottery comparisons a clearly new "archaeological timeline" independent of the poular secular timeline has emerged, which shows up these Persian Period revisions.

But it seems to me, when someone mentions the pagans revising their records in contrast to the Bible, the position is always that the Jews are the ones that were the revisionists and not the pagans. Certainly a double standard.

In the meantime, archaeology is not definitely reflecting these conceptual ideas of revisionism that contradict the Biblical history. In this case, there is no crear-cut archaeological evidence the cities were not abandoned for 70 years, whether destroyed by the Babylonians are not.

Further, a lot of this rhetoric about the revisions in the post-exilist period, are conclusions drawn by scholars who don't realize the changes the pagans made in their timeline. But ther eare two factors to this: 1) relative chronology and 2) absolute chronology. The absolute chronology has to do with astronomical events. When we find some that do not match or are absent, then we become suspicious.

Case in point, a solar eclipse that occurred during the first of spring in the year Xerxes invaded Greece. Of course, the eclipse is right there in 424 BCE on March 21st from the original timeline. When later revisions were made, the invasion was moved back from 424 BCE to 481 and then 480 BCE, neither years sporting an eclipse during the spring. So Herodotus' reference is considered spurious.

However, this specifically dated eclipse, if used to date the original invasion by Xerxes in 424 BCE, it has an effect on the entire timeline. Xerxes invasion occurs 10 years afte rthe Battle of Marathon, which would be dated to 434 BCE, for instance. Darius dies at Marathon per the Bible in his sixt year. If 434 BCE is the 6th year of Darius, the same year the temple was completed, then we have a credible date for the temple completion in the last month of Adar, 433 BCE. The temple took 22 years to build from the 1st of Cyrus. 22 plus 433 = 455 BCE.

So you see, there are some choices. However, without having the correct chronology some false concepts are presumed which lead to some speculation about revisionism among the Jewish records, when in fact, it is the Persian history that has been revised and the Bible is relating the true history. So a lot of these concepts of revisionism are erroneously based on pagan history which is less scrutinized.

That's why an academic comparison of the actual results from archaeology with what the Bible says is being made here. In this case, the claim of the Bible is that Ashkelon, among other cities, would be desolated for 70 years after Babylon destroys it. Archaeology confirms that. That leads credibility to the 70-years of the land being desolate to pay back its sabbaths as the Bible says. So this would not be part of any revision or exaggeration by the Jews in this case. The 26-year longer Neo-Babylonian Period as noted by Josephus and the Bible thus checks out archaeologically. That holds even is some claim potential evidence of continued occupation. You're still dealing wiht a full 70-year period from year 23. The Babylonian records, however, do not reflect this and is 26 years too short, conflicting with the archaeology in place from Ashkelon.

I know all issues will not be answered but there is some astronomy and archaeology out there that can help us reconnect to an original timeline.

So far, especially using the more reliable Babylonian dating which is not so influenced by the Persian revisions, we establish excellent Biblical dating down through the Persian Period which aligns better when dated to lower archaeological periods than the distorted chronology.

Again, of course, Jehovah's witnesses are so far earlier than any of this, any kind of an archaeological relevance, especially in regards to absolute history is just a joke. At the time of the Exodus, the revised secular date is about 60 years too early and the WTS is 67 years earlier than that, making their chronology for the Exodus in 1513 BCE distorted by 127 years. This is 127 years earlier than the Exodus dated by the KTU 1.78 text to 1386 BCE, the 1st of Akhenaten, a pharaoh who after experiencing the 10 plagues, converted to monotheism.

LS

There apparently was a major trade route that went from Egypt up thru Gaza to Jerusalem and on to Damascus, I've read that it was called the Kings Highway or something similar.

Its funny the way the Society clung to a misread version of history. They could have made their claim for Religious authority with an accurate version of the events. More stubborness rather than choose an enlightened approach. If they had come out with 'new light' on the events of 607BC the followers would have bought it .