The nature of the conflict in Ezra-Nehemiah !

The text of Eua-Nehemiah reflects a severe conflict million in post-exilic Judaean society. Howl!fler, the text is uncletlr about crucilll issues such lIS the identity of the parties inl101vetl, the tdIIIs of the different JHl11ies, and l!fIen the roots of the conflict. A close analysis of the text revellls that whIIt is portrayed lIS an external conflict cletUly hIlS a suious Internal dimension too. The hetl1t of the conflict lies not so much in disputes over land and building rights, but 1Ylther in the central issue of IJCcess to the community of rdUmed exiles.


INTRODUCTION
The text of Ezra-Nehemiah reflects a severe conflict situation in post-exilic Judaean society.In fact, whilst the text relates only a limited number of events from the history of the post-exilic Judaean society, each of these is characterized by stark conflict.
Within the narrative, different socio-historic situations are thus presupposed, yet in some way or another these have all been integrated into one literary presentation.The result is that the reader often gets the impression that the text, in essence, relates one continuous conflict.And this conflict in Ezra-Nehemiah, on the surface at least, seems to .be external, reflecting conflict between the Judaeans and various outside parties.On closer examination, however, a number of issues in the text render this first impression problematic.This leads to the first part of the present investigation into the nature of the conflict narrated in the text of Ezra-Nehemiah.
The second part of the investigation concerns the issues at stake in the various conflicts that are narrated in the text.On the surface, once again, things seem plain enough: the conflict primarily revolves around the rebuilding of the temple and the city walls of Jell,!Salem.A closer look at certain aspects of the text, however, reveals that, there is probably much more to the conflict than initially meets the eye.This article, then, aims to show that • what is portrayed as an external conflict in fact has a serious internal dimension; • the heart of the conflict lies not so much in disputes over building rights, but rather in the central issue of acCess to the community of returned exiles.

EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL CONFLICT?
Ezra-Nehemiah certainly reflects serious conflict between the Judaeans returned from exile and other parties, in particular the non-Judaean inhabitants of Jerusalem and environments.As narrated, the conflict initially derives from the Judaeans' refusal to allow others to participate in the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.This leads to opposition from local inhabitants, opposition which is, according to the narrative, sustained over an extended period of time (Ezra 4-6).
In similar vein, Nehemiah's initiative to restore the wall surrounding Jerusalem immediately results in serious conflict with various non-Judaean parties (Neh 2ft).Since the moment of presenting his credentials to the governors of the region west of the Euphrates, Nehemiah has to put up with fierce opposition from a number of local leaders (Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab), themselves probably also representatives of the Persian king in their own communities.And gradually it becomes clear that NehemIah is not only clashing with a number of prominent individuals, but rather with other ethnic groups (the Arabs, Moabites and the people of Ashdod).
Intema11y, though, the Judaeans seem to be united.They share a common history that stretches back all the way to Abraham and that eventually culminated in their collective return en masse from the exile in Babylonia.In fact, the Judaeans are commonly referred.to simply by means of the generic term c.vy and without any further Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The nlllllre o/tIN conjlkt In EUtI-Neht!lllitl/t qualification (eg Ezra 3:1, 10:9, Neh 5:13; 8:1; 11:1).They have a common heritage and share the same plight, representing the remnant (rT'~ I ~".) of the people earlier taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 1 :4; 9:6-15; Neh 1 :2, 3).Moreover, their unity is also suggested by the way in which different terms ~:t~:', iIJ~"17, lQ.' ,l:;n iIJ\"17) are used interchangeably to emphasize the Judaeans' c~:>ntinuity with the pre-exilic kingdom of Judah and the long-gone united monarchy of Israel.
And yet there are a number of indications in the narrative that suggest serious internal strife.The first such indication, when families are mentioned who could not prove their Israelite origin (Ezra 2:59-60//Neh 7:61-2), is not much more th8n a hint of .what is to come.Their inability to prove their Israelite origin clearly.implied the possibility of being excluded from the present Judaean community, which could obviously then lead to tensions within the Judaean community (cfEskenazi 1992:584).
Such tensions are reflected in the meeting called to disband the mixed marriages.
Internal strife is already suggested by the serious threats accompanying the call to all returned exiles to attend the meeting: anyone not present within three days would himself .
.. be cut off from the community and his possessions confiscated (Ezra 10:8).Why would such serious threats be necessary if the matter to be discussed was not contentious?That everyone, in fact, was not in agl'eement on the issue is evidenced by the fact that fom Reco~sing, therefore, that there probably was not only external conflict (between the Judaean community and other groups in the area) but also serious internal conflict (within the Judaean community itselt), it becomes important to determine what actually lay at the root of the conflict.

SOME CRUCIAL ISSUES IN THE CONFLICT
What then lies at the root of the whole conflict?At first glance one might suspect that the conflict in ~e narrative binges on the resettling of large numbers of returned exiles and their attempts to rebuild the temple and the city walls of Jerusalem.However, not all the conflict narrated is related to the rebuilding of the temple and the city walls.Indeed, the fact that the conflict was not only external, but also internal, suggests that there was more to it.Precisely because the narrative is so vague about a number of crucial issues, and in particular the identity of the parties in the conflict and their respective aims, it is necessary to take a closer look..
In the frrst instance it is striking that, in the conflict over the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 4-6), the narrative is very vague about the identity of the parties.In the narrative the people offering help to rebuild the temple are introduced right at the outset as ''the enemies of Judah and Benjamin" (Ezra.4: 1).The only further information offered in the text concerning these people is that they were earlier brought here by the Assyrian king, Esarbaddon -in other words they are, in the view of the narrative, foreigners.
These facts led Ackroyd -after dismissing suggestions to identify these people with the Samaritans as anachronistic -to make the following cautious remark: ''We shoulc;l rather recognize the probability that a conflict of views among groups within the community is being conducted with the kind of ~tuperation which is all too common in religio-political quarrels" (Ackroyd 1991:123; my italics-WCvW).
Secondly, the narrative offers no satisfactory explanation for the motives of either the Judaeans or their opponerits.The so-called "enemies of Judah and Benjamin" provide a religious motive for their offer to help rebuild the temple, saying that theY have long In addition, the fierce reaction to this rebuttal -amounting to intimidation (Ezra 4:4), bribery (Ezra 4:5) and continuous complaints to the Persian king (Ezra 4:6-16) -is not explained by the narrative either.Such reaction must surely be rooted in more than just a feeling of rejection.That those outside the Judaean community indeed experienced the unilateral reconstruction of the temple as a threat, is implied clearly by including the misplaced and aQachronistic letter of Rehum and Shimshai (Ezra 4:9-16) and the extended correspondence between Tattenai, Shethar Bozenai 'and king Darius (Ezra 5-6) at this point in the narrative.Why then, could one ask, is the temple such a threat to people who might not worship there?Surely, neither the mere existence of the building nor the religious ceremonies performed there could realistically pose.such a severe threat.
Here I want to offer a suggestion.I would like to suggest that the ensuing animosity actually stems from the exclusion of the local population from the community of returned Judaean exiles, since the Judaeans' greatest asset was neither a building nor the gifts for the temple, but rather a dynamic community.In all probability, this community returned from the heart of contemporary civilization possessing certain skills, contacts and material means to further their own interests more effectively than the local population (contra Smith-Christopher 1994).In addition, a reconstructed temple would ensure growing numbers of people flocking to Jerusalem -where the Judaeans would then effectively control the temple.And by controlling the temple, the Judaeans would also be in a position to control both the local economy and society at large.
This fits in very well with the issue of mixed marriages described in Ezra 7-10.
The whole aim of Ezra's actions is to exclude the local population from the Judaean community.This is quite clear from the formulation of Ezra 9:1-2 (RSV): The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the HTS 57(3&4) 2001 1259 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their SODS.Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and in this faith1essness the officials and leaders have led the way.
And. although the motivation given for dissolving the mixed marriages is primarily religious, it goes hand in hand with a more materialistic motivation, namely to ensure that the Judaean community will continue prospering: ''Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, so that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever" (E2Za 9: 12; RSV -notice the purpose clause introduced by l.t'tl'?).In the face of competition for land and resources, maintaining an exclusive Judaean community thus serves the interests of members of this community.
This is confirmed by Smith-Christopher (1994:247) who asserts that sociological studies have indeed shown that such considerations often play a prominent role in the propagation of endogamy.
In the book of Nehemiah, the narrative describing the conflict over the rebuilding of the city wall in many respects resembles the earlier narrative on the reconstruction of the temple.Once again conflict erupts over a building project.Once again the reasons for the opposition to the building of the wall are not properly explained in the narrative -Sanballat's fears of rebellion against the Persian king (Neh 2:19; 6:6-7) can hardly be seen as legitimate, being expressed immediately after the narrative reports ~ehemiah handing his letters of authorization from the Persian king to the local governors (Neh 2:9).Moreover, Nehemiah immediately denies these accusations, and the rest o( the narrative in no way suggests to the reader that the Judaeans are even considering rebelling against the Persian king.
The narrative thus once more fails to give a satisfactory explanation of the interests Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem, the Arabs, the Ammonites and.
persons (Jonathan son of Asahel, Jahzeiah son of Tikvah, Meshullam and the Levite Shabbethai) are shown to go against the stream in opposing the dissolution of mixed marriages (Ezra 10:15).Were these four men perhaps named explicitly because they were actually the leading figures representing the sentiments of others left unnamed?Be that as it may, what is more important is that the narrative only names them, but does not 1256 HTS 57(3&4) 2001 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library ServicesWo"tu C VIllI Wyk & A P B Breytenbtlclt afford them a voice to explain their view.The same obviously applies to the more than 100 men who are forced to divorce their wives of non-Judaean origin.How likely is it that they would have supported the exclusivist ideals of the majority?Another indication of significant conflict within the ludaean community is to be found in the narrative about Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem and the restoration of the city wall.On his arrival, Nehemiah does not trust the local leaders enough to disclose his intentions to them (Neh 2:16).After subsequently commencing the process of rebuilding the wall, the Tekoan leaders, for some undisclosed reason, refuse to take part in the work (Neh 3:5).Furthermore, the burden placed upon the Judaean community by the work, as well as the stress caused by the external pressures, also leads to complaints (Neh 4:4-10), making it necessary for Nehemiah to encourage the people to persist with the work (Neh 4:8-14).The incident described in Nehemiah 5 in fact reveals significant tensions within the Judaean community.The narrative reports some poor Judaeans complaining to Nehemiah about severe exploitation by their wealthy kinsmen, literally leading to the enslavement of their children in an attempt to appease their creditors.Nehemiah handles the situation by calling a large public meeting, where the wealthy land-owners return confiscated property and relinquish (some?) further claims they had against their debtors.Although this incident represents an isolated case of internal strife in the narrative, and although the situation was apparently resolved easily, even unanimously (Neh 5:12-13), it does at least reveal severe economic tensions within the JUd3ean community.Internal tension is also indicated by Nehemiah's accusations that a number of people within the Judaean community (specifically Semaiah and Noadiah) were auemptingto intimidate him and to lure him into a trap (Neh 6:10-14).He also refers to active correspondence and close ties between prominent Judaeans and his arch-enemy, Tobiah.These people would even defend Tobiah before Nehemiah and assure him of Tobiah's gOod qualities.And finaUy it is remarkable that both Tobiah (probably the same one called an Ammonite in Neh 2:10, 19,3; 35 2) and his son, Jehohanan, have Hebrew names and are 2 Although the text nowhere confirms that the Tobiah mentioned in Neh 2-6 is the same person as the Tobiah mentioned in Neh 13, this is likely for two reasoDS: (1) one would expect the narrative to clearly distinguish between two prominent characters with the same name, and (2) it is clear from both Neh 2-6 and Neb 13 that the Tobiah mentioned has close ties with prominent people in the ludaean community.HTS 57(3&4) 2001 us, Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services married to Judaean wives!In fact, it seems that Tobiah is even related to the High Priest, Eliashib, who is reproached by Nehemiah for offering Tobiah accommodation in the temple (Neh 13:4-9).

1258
HTS 57(3&4) 2001Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Wouta' C WIll Wyk & A P B BreytenlHu:lt been worshipping the same God.To this the Judaean leaders respond by raising a political objection, the command of the Persian king.However, this rebuttal seems unwarranted by Cyrus' command, which is not formulated in exclusive terms in either Ezra 1:2-4 or Ezra 6:3-5 (contraSchultz 1980:234; Williamson 1985:50; Throntveit   1992:25-26).
the people from Ashdod are trying to further.And it remains similarly unclear why the rebuilding of the properly authorised city wall provokes such fierce reaction, this time in the fonn of 1160 HTS 57(3&4) 2001 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services