I recently took an online course on the fall and rise of Jerusalem from Tel Aviv University, which examined the archeology of Jerusalem from the Assyrian period through the Persian period, with a respectful look at the nuances of the biblical accounts of that same period, which is fairly rare for that sort of academic approach. As the final examination of the course asked students to share their thoughts on three questions relating to the fall of Judah, and so I thought it appropriate to share my thoughts here for those who want to read the schoolwork I collect from time to time through various online courses [1]. With that said, let us look.
Causes Of Instability In Judah During Early Babylonian Rule
There were many sources of instability in the Kingdom of Judah before its destruction after only a brief period of Babylonian rule. Some of these sources of instability were internal to Judah itself. Some of them were internal to the Babylonian regime itself as well, and it was the combination of the sources of instability that led to the lamentable but not particularly surprising destruction of Jerusalem after its repeated revolts against Babylonian rule. Let us turn and discuss at least briefly the many causes of the instability of the Kingdom of Judah under Babylonian rule from biblical accounts as well as archeology and other historical records.
There were several sources of instability that were internal to Judah itself, or based on its particular context. The Bible records in 2 Kings 23:26-24:7, among other places, that after the death of Josiah in battle against Pharaoh Necho of Egypt, Judah became a vassal kingdom of Egypt, which promptly removed the ruler chosen by the “people of the land” (2 Kings 23:30), Jehoahaz, and placed his brother Jehoaikim on the throne. However, not long after becoming king Jehoaikim was faced with the need to submit to the Babylonians. However, even after the victory of Babylon over Egypt for control of the land west of the Euphrates, there were still pro-Egyptian advisers who provided false promises of support for Judah to rebel from the Babylonian yoke, a lure that proved too strong for Judah’s last kings to resist. In addition to this, there was further religious instability between prophets like Jeremiah who counseled for Judah to submit to Babylon and other prophets who proclaimed that Judah would win its freedom if it revolted from Babylon, and these sources of instability made it hard for some people to recognize which path to follow in the instability that followed the collapse of Assyrian power.
Some of the sources of instability, though, were external to Judah and internal to the Babylonian regime itself. According to the Babylonian chronicle, and Week 2 of the course, Babylon did not set up or establish any new institutions in the border areas of Judah or its neighbors to bolster the Babylonian regime. Having long been under Assyrian domination themselves, and with no coherent imperial strategy or institution building ambitions, except to repopulate their own heavily damaged homeland, the Babylonian empire was unable or unwilling to build up the sort of imperial establishment that Assyria had done to remove the cultural identity of the people under its rule and assimilate them to a new identity. The fact that Babylonian prestige depended on the victory of its armies made the occasional indecisive battles or temporary setbacks seem like the sign of sure decline, and encouraged the small kingdoms on the outskirts of Babylonian rule and within the zone of influence of Egypt to seek alternative regimes to support, requiring repeated invasions to secure the land under Babylonian rule. Much of this instability resulted from the lack of Babylonian finesse in their governance.
Whether one looks at the internal or external causes of instability, the result of continued Egyptian influence and the absence of strong centripetal institutions in order to draw the attention and support of border regimes like that of Judah into the empire, along with the continued religious instability within Judah, led to the repeated rebellion of its last kings as they sought to recover from over a century of dominance by Assyria by establishing a more independent state. Yet the end result was the destruction of Jerusalem, the deportation of its elites, and the removal of the kingly line of David from rule as repeated rebellion for a strategic border state was unacceptable for the Babylonian regime.
Continuity During The Babylonian Period
According to the videos in Week 3 and 4 of the class, despite the massive destruction there was continuity in several aspects of life in Judah during the Babylonian period. Ironically enough, the fact that the Babylonians were unwilling or unable to make large investments in institution building even in a strategically important border area between Babylonian and Egyptian territory like Judah made some sort of continuity inevitable for the land of Judah to have any use for the Babylonian Empire whatsoever. As it is, there were elements of continuity in the administration, culture, as well as settlement, even if all of them showed strong evidence of contraction during the Babylonian period.
In terms of the administration, there is both biblical and extrabiblical evidence of the continuity of administration that saw pro-Babylonian court forces like that of Gedaliah entrenched in positions of power serving to lead the remnant of the people that was left in Judah. Around Gedaliah’s leadership, about which more will be said shortly, the remaining elites of Judah were able to coalesce and tend the land despite the loss of their political independence. The fact that Jeremiah was arrested when trying to leave Jerusalem towards the area of Benjamin, where Gedaliah’s rule was centered around Mizpah, an area that escaped the destruction of Jerusalem and the fortresses of the hill country, in Jeremiah 37:11-21, and was released to the custody of Gedaliah after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, suggests that Gedaliah’s regime had been set up for some time before Jerusalem’s fall, allowing for continuity.
Concerning the material culture and settlement, there are clear indications from pottery as well as building that there was continuity in these elements as well. The characteristic bell jars that had been made during the latter part of the Assyrian period of Judah’s history continued to be made, albeit in a new phase, during the Babylonian period. Oded Lipschits, in his essay on the Babylonian period [2], discusses that the continuity in the Judahite jars and their stamped handles was related to continuity not only in the area of Benjamin, but also the administrative complex at Ramat Rahel which apparently was responsible for collecting tribute for the various imperial masters of Judah from the Assyrian through the Persian periods. It was in Babylon’s interest to ensure that there was an administrative infrastructure capable of making their imperial rule in Judah pay, and the fact that the areas around Mizpah with a loyal government and that around Ramat Rahel in a rich agricultural region with a preexisting infrastructure for collection of tribute from the remnant of the local Judean population suggests that the Babylonians valued continuity in Judah for their own interests, and were not interested in a complete destruction of Judah despite its frequent bouts of rebellion.
The Age Of Gedaliah Ben Ahikam
Gedaliah ben Ahikam was a Judean leader during a difficult period in Judah’s history, at the end of the Davidic dynasty and the beginning of Babylonian rule. As the first governor of conquered Judah, he had an unfortunate end at the hand of revanchist assassins who viewed him as a stool pigeon for Chaldean rule, but while he lived and served as governor over Judah he had the support of Jeremiah and was able to provide a moderating hand for Babylonian rule given his credentials as a pro-Babylonian member of Judah’s elite and a capable leader.
Although we have some archeology that includes seals of Gedaliah and others from the story of his rule and his assassination [1], most of the information we have about the time he was governor, at least as a narrative, comes from 2 Kings and even more so Jeremiah. These two sources appear to spring from Judeans who remained in the land after the elites were exiled to Babylonia, and may ultimately come from Jeremiah’s own writings, or those of an associate of his. From the text of both 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 40-41, we learn that while Gedaliah was able to attract able leaders and encourage the people of the land who remained to take care of it after the elites had been deported, that members of the royal family who had escaped Nebuchadnezzar’s armies were hired by King Baalis of the Ammonites to kill Gedaliah, succeeding when Gedaliah failed to give rumors of the plot due credence. From the account we learn that there was a variety of feelings about the Babylonians, ranging from those who continued to hope for revenge against the displacement of the Davidic line from rule over Judah or a desire to expand the power of the Ammonites, but that even among those who supported Gedaliah there were people concerned about Babylonian reprisals who were unwilling to remain in the land to face the inevitable avenging Babylonian army, which came about 582 BC.
From these texts we also learn the character of Gedaliah. For one, he appears as a capable leader, and certainly someone able to build a wide coalition of support among the Judean survivors of the Babylonian captivity, except for the hard-liners opposed to any kind of Babylonian rule. That said, ultimately he also appeared to be too naive and trusting in the goodness of others, and not aware of the depths to which others could sink in terms of violence. Even when presented with sound intelligence of what his enemies wished to do, he was unwilling to believe the worst of others, and that is a failing that can get you killed as a leader, not only in the ancient world, but even today. It would have been worthwhile to know what the Babylonians thought about their Judean governor, but what the Bible gives is an account filled with mostly praise, but with criticism at his trust in his own popularity that led to an untimely and brutal death.
[1] See, for example
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/argumentative-reflection-justice/
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/argumentative-reflection-do-we-need-a-state/
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/an-eternal-flame/
[2] Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Winona Lake: 68-133.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Pingback: Young Josiah | Edge Induced Cohesion