Nehemiah’s Mission and the Persian Empire

• Blenkinsopp compares the mission to the Egyptian Udjahorresnet (Blenkinsopp, “Mission of Udjahorresnet“).

• Janzen understands Nehemiah as a Persian official unconnected to the temple and its organization (Janzen, “Politics, Settlement”).

• Hoglund suggests a context around the Egyptian revolt (Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration).

• For Lipschits, the fortification of Jerusalem was part of an increased interest in the southern Levant after the Egyptian revolt and as a center for tax gathering (Lipschits, “Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” 38–39).

• Edelman considers the mission as part of Artaxerxes’ integration strategy (Edelman, Origins of the “Second” Temple, 340–51).

• Fried argues that Nehemiah’s mission was to lead a new garrison to Jerusalem, with inevitable political rivalry resulting (Fried, Priest and the Great King, 193–212).

• Noting Heltzer’s comments Persian punishments (Heltzer, “Flogging and Plucking of Beards”), Fried further argues that Nehemiah as Persian governor of Yehud had the authority to enforce Torah, which he demonstrates through his punitive actions (Fried, “You Shall Appoint Judges,” 84–88).

• Williamson points out the relevance of the Persepolis tablets (Williamson, Studies, 212–31).

• Wright compares Nehemiah’s feasting to kings and governors of the ancient Near East (Wright, “Commensal Politics I”; “Commensal Politics II”).