Abstract
In this paper, as I follow scholars’ socio-economic perspectives on Ezra 9-10, I will explore the mixed marriage issue in light of the post-colonial theory, especially Homi Bhabha’s post-colonial theory. I will argue that Ezra as a mimic man followed the Persian Empire’s political policy. The Empire prohibited intermarriage between the returnees and those who had not been in exile. However, Ezra was persecuted because of his coercive dissolution of marriage. In his commentary, Ezra-Nehemiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp assumes that Ezra was recalled by the Persian Empire since Ezra’s decision of dissolution of marriage caused political unrest in Yehud. However, he does not clarify how Ezra’s intermarriage prohibition is supported by the Persian Empire. Given the fact that Udjahorresnet, the Egyptian priest and special advisor to the Persian Empire on Egyptian affairs, banished the foreigners who had settled in the sanctuary of Neith in the third year of Darius, Ezra must have followed the prohibition of intermarriage by the Persian Empire. If I apply Homi Bhabha’s concept to Ezra’s political status, Ezra as a mimic man reveals his hybrids: he is part Pro-Persian and part Jewish elite. In an attempt to resolve the conflicts between the group of returnees and those who were not in exile, especially in regard to property disputes, the Persian Empire sent the Pro-Persian Ezra. However, by interpreting the Deuteronomic law in an extreme way, Ezra decided to separate the existing families. According to Ancient Near Eastern Law, a husband should return his wife’s dowry after their divorce. On account of this, Ezra must have stirred up considerable social controversy. In other words, Ezra’s hybridity functions as a menace to the Persian Empire.
Introduction
The denouement of the book of Ezra (Ezra 9-10) portrays how Ezra and his community dissolved the mixed marriage issue in Yehud (the province of Judah) in the Persian period. In previous chapters, Ezra as both a scribe and a priest (Ezra 7:1-6) arrives in Jerusalem from Babylon with the returnees to administer Yehud according to the Persian King Artaxerxes’ rescript (Ezra 7:11-26). Having sacrificed burnt offerings to God and delivered the king’s orders to the royal satraps and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates (Ezra 8:35-36), Ezra is informed of the mixed marriage between the descendants of leaders as the holy seed and the peoples of the lands (Ezra 9:1-2). As Ezra introduces sins of ancestors and their consequences in his prayer, he regards the mixed marriage issue as a grave sin against God (Ezra 9:3-15). To respond to Ezra’s prayer, Shecaniah, son of Jehiel voluntarily suggests sending away all foreign women and their children (Ezra 10:1-3). Despite Ezra’s radical policy against the mixed marriage, questions remained unanswered: (a) in Ezra’s categories, who are tremblers at the words of the God of Israel? Who are the peoples of the lands? (b) Why does Ezra prohibit mixed marriages between the descendants of leaders and the peoples of the lands? Is it only explainable from the Deuteronomic theological perspective? (c) how does the Persian empire influence Ezra’s negative appraisal of mixed marriage in Yehud? (d) In the lists that follow of those who had foreigners, there is no explanation of the result of the separation. Furthermore, after this issue, one cannot hear Ezra’s own voice until Nehemiah 8. Why does Ezra disappear?
In order to answer these questions, scholars have suggested that by accentuating the the Deuteronomist’s negative viewpoint toward mixed marriage (Deut. 7:3; 23:3), Ezra prevents his returnees from assimilating with the peoples of the lands. Walther Eichrodt insists that what Ezra achieved through the segregation was the increasingly self-conscious concentration of all life on the Law. 1 Based upon the Deuteronomist’s theological perspective, Ezra rigidly defined the norm of conduct that was to rule all the people in Jerusalem in the Persian period. In a similar vein, Paul Hason argues that Ezra and Nehemiah adopt the Deuteronomist’s negative viewpoint toward the mixed marriage as the sole means of defining membership to safeguard their community from the threat of assimilation in the fifth century BCE. 2
In addition to previous scholars’ theological approach, current scholars have focused on the socio-economic and anthropological perspectives on the mixed marriage issue in Ezra 9-10. As Daniel L. Smith-Christopher introduces Robert K. Merton’s exchange theory and the related hypergamy theory drawing on the commodity exchange approach to marriage formulated in the structuralist anthropological analysis of Claude Lévi-Strauss, he insists that the problem of foreign marriages is centrally a political problem, involving the Jewish aristocracy and local governmental leadership. 3 In a similar vein, as the biblical scholars Tamara C. Eskenazi and the sociologist Eleanore Judd analyze the mixed marriage issue in Ezra 9-10, they introduce power-conflict theory to explain the relationship between dominants and subordinates, whose interests clash over scarce resources such as economic goods, prestige and power. 4 More recently, from the anthropological perspective, Katherine E. Southwood notes that in light of the relationship among various generations of migrants Ezra 9-10 portrays cultural conflicts between different generations. 5
Unfortunately few scholars have attempted to analyze the relationship between the colonizer as the Persian Empire and the colonized as Yehud in Ezra 9-10 from the post-colonial theory, although scholars’ socio-economic and anthropological perspectives shed light on the understanding of conflicts within Yehud in fifth century BCE. Jean-Pierre Ruiz, the post colonialist, deals only briefly with the mixed marriage issues in Ezra 9-10 to understand the language issue in Nehemiah 13. 6 Then he concludes that Nehemiah’s violent reaction to the exogamous marriages of his fellow immigrants represents an act of anti-assimilationist resistance, an act that was as vehement as it was, historically, futile. 7
In this paper, as I follow scholars’ socio-economic perspectives on Ezra 9-10, I will explore the mixed marriage issue in light of the post-colonial theory, especially Homi Bhabha’s post-colonial theory. 8 I will argue that Ezra as a mimic man followed the Persian Empire’s political policy. The Empire prohibited intermarriage between the returnees and those who had not been in exile. However, Ezra was persecuted because of his coercive dissolution of marriage. In his commentary, Ezra-Nehemiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp assumes that Ezra was recalled by the Persian Empire since Ezra’s decision of dissolution of marriage caused political unrest in Yehud. 9 However, he does not clarify how Ezra’s intermarriage prohibition is supported by the Persian Empire. Given the fact that Udjahorresnet, the Egyptian priest and special advisor to the Persian Empire on Egyptian affairs, banished the foreigners who had settled in the sanctuary of Neith in the third year of Darius, Ezra must have followed the prohibition of intermarriage by the Persian Empire. 10 If I apply Homi Bhabha’s concept to Ezra’s political status, Ezra as a mimic man reveals his hybrids: he is part Pro-Persian and part Jewish elite. In an attempt to resolve the conflicts between the group of returnees and those who were not in exile, especially in regard to property disputes, the Persian Empire sent the Pro-Persian Ezra. However, by interpreting the Deuteronomic law in an extreme way, Ezra decided to separate the existing families. According to Ancient Near Eastern Law, a husband should return his wife’s dowry after their divorce. 11 On account of this, Ezra must have stirred up considerable social controversy. In other words, Ezra’s hybridity functions as a menace to the Persian Empire. For this reason, there is no explanation of the result of the separation. However, it seems significant that one does not hear Ezra’s own voice, which disappears until Nehemiah 8. In contrast to Ezra’s coercive dissolution of marriage, for the peace and stability of Yehud, Nehemiah exhorts the prohibition of intermarriage and expels one of the grandsons of the high priest Eliashib (Neh. 13:23-31).
Socio-economic Perspectives on the mixed marriage
Core-Peripheral Model
In trying to understand the Persian Empire’s mixed marriage policy, it is necessary to analyze the development of imperial strategies in different historical settings. Many scholars have long discussed theories of imperial development on the basis of social scientific methods. Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt has profoundly advanced our understanding of the development of imperial strategies, particularly in the area of social science research, by introducing the model of “patrimonial” versus “bureaucratic” empires as well as aspects of core-peripheral models. 12 Recently Eisenstadt’s imperial models have also been criticized because — from a post-colonial perspective — he denied imperial subjects any agency to shape events. 13 However, from a broader perspective, the core-peripheral model more correctly reflects the history of Israel. In this section, I will not only explore how Eisenstadt’s core-peripheral model can be applied to biblical texts, but will also report research done on different imperial policies in different historical settings. These different imperial policies also had an impact on the mixed marriage policy. In an attempt to eliminate the colonized’s ethnic identity, the Assyrian Empire encouraged intermarriage between different ethnic groups in the aftermath of mass deportation. Although the Neo-Babylonian Empire followed the Assyrian Empire’s policy of mass deportation, its deportation was centered on its city, Babylon. For this reason, the intermarriage between different ethnic groups in the city of Babylon could raise social controversy. To overcome shortcomings of previous empires’ mixed marriage policy, the Persian Empire allowed different ethnic groups’ intermarriages but prohibited the intermarriage between the lower classes and the upper classes of the colonized.
Before investigating the influence of imperial empires on the history of Israel, first and foremost it is essential to understand Eisenstadt’s core-peripheral models. Eisenstadt points out that in the Imperial societies the centers typically attempted not only to extract resources from the periphery but also to permeate, to reconstruct it symbolically, and structurally to mobilize it. 14 The rudimentary level of imperial societies is the patrimonial regimes which displayed few symbolic or organizational differences between the center and the periphery. 15 However, as imperial societies developed, centers of imperial empires attempted to control resources from their peripheral colonies by emphasizing the unique position of the centers in their societies. 16 Accordingly, more centralized imperial societies require developed political institutions which fulfill various administrative and governmental functions. 17
Given the fact that the Israelites were influenced by different strategies of empires, biblical texts strongly suggest the validity of Eisenstadts’ core-peripheral model. From Eisenstadts’ perspective, the Assyrian Empire (911-612 BCE.) portrays the rudimentary level of imperial societies in light of its coercive and destructive strategy. In particular, the Assyrian Empire’s massive deportation policy caused serious transgressions of ethnic boundaries. To acquire resources from other territories, the Assyrian Empire conquered its peripheral territories and deported the subjugated populations. In other words, the Assyrian administration scattered their colonies rather than integrating their colonies into their centralized system. According to Bustenay Oded’s analysis, as “Two-way” deportation, the Assyrians used to bring people from “conquered lands” to a place which had previously been captured and from which there had already been deportation.
18
In particular, they deported men together with their families.
19
For instance, in 2 Kings 17:6, 24, the Assyrian king deported the northern Israelite to Assyria, Halah, Gozan, and the towns of the Medes, and then resettled people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim to the towns of Samaria.
20
This massive deportation must have resulted in extensive mixed marriage issues in the colonized society. The main purpose of the mixed marriage was to ensure the loss of an ethnic identity. Bustenay Oded notes the stated aims and objectives of mass deportation as follows: Their bonds with their own country and homes had been severed. They had no sentimental attachment to the country where they were posted, which was usually far from their homeland. Consequently, they were loyal to the king of Assyria, who had brought them to this country for military service.
21
The Assyrian Empire’s mixed marriage policy for the colonized expected to break down the ethnic boundaries of the colonized people. In this way, the Assyrian Empire prevented in advance any resistance of the colonized populations.
Although the Neo-Babylonian Empire (600-539 BCE.) continued to maintain the Assyrian Empire’s deportation strategy, the rulers of the Neo-Babylonian Empire developed it for a more centralized administrative system. As Eisenstadt points out, the Neo-Babylonian Empire reflects the high level of institutional distinctiveness of the centers and of structural differentiation.
22
David Stephen Vanderhooft argues that unlike the Assyrians, the Babylonians deported populations into the Babylonian heartland and settled them in discrete enclaves rather than shifting populations into the imperial periphery.
23
For example, in order to maximize resources of colonies to the center, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem and in 587 BCE. moved all valuable resources — including local elites, metal workers and golden vessels of the temple of Jerusalem — to the center of Babylonia except the people of the land (2 Kings 24-25). As a result, various ethnic groups were allowed to live within the city of Babylon. These different ethnic groups intermarried, although some ethnic groups such as Jews settled in a distinct region and remained endogamous. In The Cambridge Ancient History, D.J. Wiseman introduces various ethnic groups who lived in the city of Babylon as follows: At the time under study the population of Babylonia was ethnically mixed. The country was abundantly populated by Chaldean and Aramaean tribes living side by side with the old local inhabitants, whom they gradually assimilated. Many aliens also lived in Babylonia. These were often settled in considerable groups in specified regions. Thus in the environs of Nippur and in the city itself each ethnic group was assigned a particular territory. Among aliens there were also the king’s mercenaries, voluntary immigrants, and people who for various reasons lived permanently or temporarily in Babylonia (merchants, political refugees, seasonal hired workers from Elam, and so on). Thus Babylonian texts mention numerous aliens living at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Among them were Elamites, Persians, Cilicians, Jews, various emigrants from Asia Minor (‘Ionians’), ‘fugitives from Media,’ and others.
24
Intermarriage between different ethnic and cultural groups caused social controversy in the city of Babylon. Such groups negatively affected indigenous Babylonians. In effect, the Neo-Babylonian Empire’s more centralized policy also resulted in the rapid fall of the empire because an excessive amount of its resources were expended in the center of Babylon which reinforced the city of Babylon but resulted in a failure to control effectively its peripheries.
In order to overcome the strategic shortcomings of previous Empires, the Persian Empire (525-332 BCE.) differentiated relationships between those in the core and those on the periphery. According to Eisenstadt’s classification, the Persian Empire reflects patterns of imperial and imperial-feudal systems. 25 On the basis of strong administrative institutions in the core, the Persian Empire allowed its peripheries to extract tributes as a support to the economy. Berquist argues that the Persian Empire’s policy reflects economic exploitation for the benefit of the empire rather than local benefit. 26 Insofar as the Persian Empire invested its funds in its colonies, it expected the colonies to maximize the extraction of peripheral resources. 27 Thus, since the Persian king Cyrus allowed Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem in 538 BCE. (Ezra 1:1-4; cf. 1Chr. 36:22-23; Ezra 6:3-4), his grandson king Darius (521-486 BCE.) actively supported their reconstruction with economic investigation (Ezra 6:1-15). According to Berquist’s analysis, Jerusalem’s location is on the semiperiphery which is intermediate between the core and the periphery. As such, it functioned as a center of colonial administration within the Persian Empire. 28 For this reason, during the reign of king Darius, the pro-Persian elites, namely Ezra and Nehemiah, not only encouraged Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, as a way to better the economy, but also allowed them to maintain their own codification of Jewish law in the community of Yehud. In this respect, Hoglund interprets the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah as an effort on the part of the Persian Empire to create a web of economic and social relationships that would tie the community more completely into the imperial system. 29
Based upon the Persian Empire’s economic and social policy, the Persian Empire must have prohibited intermarriage between other ethnic groups and indigenous Persians or between the lower classes and the upper classes of colonized groups, while permitting intermarriage among different ethnic groups. Intermarriage was wide spread throughout the Persian Empire. As Sebastian Grätz holds that intermarriage was common to the Judeans Elephantine, he analyzes the Elephantine document: Within the documents of wifehood from Elephantine, we do have two particular cases of intermarriage in which Judeans are involved. The first example is TAD B3.3 (=Kraeling no. 2), dated from August 449 BCE. In this document a certain “Ananiah, son of Azariah, a servitor of YHH the God who is in Elephantine the fortress” asks a certain “Meshullam, son of Zaccur, an Aramean of Syrene” to give him his maidservant Tamet for wifehood... The other case of probable intermarriage in Elephatine where a Judean is involved is attested in the deed TAD B2.6 “Eshor, son of Seha,” apparently an Egyptian, marries Mibtahiah, daughter of Mahseiah, who is designated as an Aramean from Syene but as a Judean in B2.3, 1-2.
30
The Judean community was not prohibited by the Empire from intermarrying with other ethnic groups. In particular, David L. Smith-Christopher introduces the experience of Pausanias, king of Lacedaemon, who attempted to marry into the Achaemenid aristocracy to seek a position under Persian rule. In Herodotus’ The History, Smith-Christopher insists that the Achaemenid rulers themselves are known to have encouraged intermarriage among the leadership of the Persian Empire.
31
However, scholars have expressed doubt in regard to Herodotus’ historical description of the experience of Pasusanias. For example, David Launderville argues that the Persian government does not seem to have promoted the intermarriage of its officials with influential local inhabitants.
32
As he quotes Pierre Briant’s argumentation, he insists that there is a surprising absence of intermarriages of Persians of any rank with individuals of other ethnic groups.
33
David Launderville explains the reason as follows: Where marriage plays a significant role in Persian politics is in the impact it has on the ranking of Persian aristocrats vis-à-vis one another. If a high-ranking aristocrat is permitted to marry a daughter of the king, his rank rises noticeably. However, such marriages with the royal family did not grant an individual any claim on the throne. Succession struggles in Persia were not so readily resolved by an appeal to genealogies or marital privileges.
34
This indicates that Persians avoided intermarriage with other ethnic groups to protect their properties. In a similar vein, they attempt to prohibit intermarriage between the lower classes and the upper classes of the colonized. In the next section, I will explain the expansion from a sociological perspective.
Socio-Economic Methodology
If the Persian Empires worried about the mixed marriage issue between the Persians and other different ethnic groups, why did their prohibition expand the prohibition of the mixed marriage toward the upper classes of the colonized? Scholars have long argued the Persian mixed marriage policy in light of socio-economic methodologies. When it comes to the economic situation in Ezra and Nehemiah, scholars focus primarily on property rights and land ownership. In other words, in the context of the dichotomy between the returnees and those who were not in exile, the upper classes who were sent by the Persian Empire were reluctant to intermarry with the lower classes since their marriage could entail the loss of their properties.
To understand inner conflicts between the returnees and the people of the lands, scholars have argued that the peoples of the lands in Ezra 9-10 refer not necessarily to foreigners but more likely to those who were not in exile. Tamara C. Eskenazi argues that the people of the land in Ezra 9-10 could have been Judahites or Israelites who had not been in exile or who differed along particular ethnic and socio-economic lines from the returnees.
35
As Eskenazi follows the JPS Tanakh’s translation of Ezra 9:1, she insisted that the peoples of the lands are necessarily foreigners: 9:1 The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands whose abhorrent practices are like those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites
Her interpretive redefinition of Ezra 9:1 comes from her recognition of the Hebrew preposition כ “according to or like.”
In an attempt to define foreign women in Ezra 9-10, Claudia Camp also suggests that two Hebrew words זר and נכר have a variety of connotations, often overlapping, in the Hebrew Bible. 36 She insists that they can refer to persons of foreign nationality, to persons who are outside one’s own family household, to persons who are not members of the priestly caste, and to deities or practices that fall outside the covenant relationship with YHWH. 37
In this respect, scholars have agreed upon the conflicts in Ezra 9-10 as referencing the dichotomy between the returnees and those who were not in exile. Moore and Kelle insist that the returnees are commonly equated with the elite class in Jerusalem, those who officiated in the temple and in the government and who dealt most directly with the Persians. 38 In contrast to the social status of the returnees, they argue that the people who remained in the land, the rural folk, are seen as a source of conflicts within Judah and of challenges to the returnees’ identity. 39
If this is the case, what socio-economic conflicts should the returnees resolve? Based upon socio-economic perspectives, the returnees have financially abundant resources as compared with those who were not in exile. As Daniel L. Smith-Christopher introduces the hypergamy theory, he notices that the Korean females in great numbers are seeking higher status by marrying in greater numbers with Japanese males.
40
Thus, he argues that the hypergamy theory, if applied to Ezra-Nehemiah, raises interesting questions about the relative advantages of the post-exilic community vis-à-vis the surrounding communities.
41
Since the people who remained in the land had low socioeconomic status, they intermarried with the returnees who had been financially supported by the Persian Empire. The descendants of the people of the land also had rights to inherit their father’s properties insofar as their parents maintained their legal marital relations. To understand this social conflict in the post-exilic period, Eskenazi contends that the Elephantine texts show that women in the Jewish community were able to initiate divorce, hold property, buy and sell.
42
She concludes, women in Judah might have had the same privileges and land might have passed to women more commonly than it had in earlier eras.
43
In this respect, as Hoglund argues that Ezra’s prohibition of intermarriage contributed to a larger imperial purpose, he notices the transfer of property in Yehud as follows: To begin such an analysis, the impact of a change in marriage customs needs to be briefly considered. One dimension of marriage is as a means of transferring property and social status from one group to another. By circumscribing the options available in marriage through the prohibition of marriage outside of the group, all property, kinship-related rights and status remain within a closed community.
44
By the same token, Berquist also insists that for Ezra, the problem is of tainted leadership and the resultant dangers of inheritance, and the solution is divorce. 45 As Berquist disagrees with scholars’ argumentation that ethnic purity is the reason for objection to intermarriage, he focuses on matters of regional competition and economic differentiation within Yehud. 46
Scholars’ socio-economic approaches to the dichotomy between the returnees and those who were not in exile shed light on the understanding of the historical settings of Ezra 9-10. However, there remain two main questions: (a) why the author of Ezra does not describe the result of the dissolution of marriage; (b) why the pro-Persian Ezra disappears after Nehemiah 8, even though he followed the Persian Empire’s intermarriage policy? In the next section, I will respond to these questions from the post-colonial perspective.
The Post-colonial Perspective on mixed marriage
In his commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp raises a question of the disappearance of Ezra as follows: The likelihood of stirring up a hornet’s nest would not have been welcomed by the Persian authorities who sent Ezra out precisely as an instrument of the pax Persica at a difficult moment and to a sensitive part of the empire. This may explain why the story breaks off suddenly rather than, as we might have expected, on an upbeat note. We do not know the outcome, but it would be a reasonable guess that Ezra was recalled after a stay of no more than a year.
47
In some sense, Blenkinsopp assumes that Ezra’s coercive prohibition of the intermarriage has dramatic repercussions on the population of Yehud. Thus, he guesses that the Persian Empire recalled Ezra as a result of his negative impact on the social stability in Yehud. More recently, in his book, Judaism, Blenkinsopp concludes that Ezra’s intermarriage policy is unsuccessful. 48 On the basis of his argumentation, if Ezra had been successful, Ruth the Moabitess would never have married Boaz, Achior the Ammonite (Judith 14:10) would never have been accepted into Judaism, and Jonah would have been saved a great deal of trouble and embarrassment. 49 His argumentation that Ezra’s intermarriage was unsuccessful is plausible because Ezra appears as a passive figure and Nehemiah functions as a key figure in Nehemiah 8, unlike Ezra’s coercive dissolution of marriage in Ezra 9-10. Notwithstanding the Ezra’s unsuccessful story, the post-colonial perspective enables us to reconstruct how Ezra as a mimic man brought resistance to the Persian Empire. For the post-colonial understanding of Ezra 9-10, I will not only introduce Homi Bhabha’s post-colonial theory, but also apply it to Ezra 9-10.
Homi K. Bhabha’s postcolonial theories
Homi K. Bhabha’s postcolonial theories of stereotype, mimicry, and hybridity in his book, the Location of Culture, shed light on the understanding of identity of the colonized in the Hebrew Bible. Since Edward Said’s analysis of the colonizer’s intentional classifications — for example the dichotomy between East and West in his book, Orientalism — post-colonial studies have had a tendency to signify the colonizer’s influence on the colonized rather than recognizing the complexity within the colonized cultures. Beyond the occidental stereotypes of the colonizers, Homi Bhabha redefines “stereotypes” and thus illuminates the anxieties and ambivalences within stereotypes since they are cultural elements which continuously change. During the process of receiving stereotypes by the colonizer, the colonized can hardly avoid “mimicry” as the colonized’s imitation of the colonizer, which is “almost the same but not quite.” 50 This concept enables Homi Bhabha to introduce “hybridity” which challenges the colonial binary oppositions (centre/margin, civilized/savage, enlightened/ignorant). 51 What Homi Bhabha has missed, however, is the fact that as Gale Yee points out, mimicry cannot become the basis for a conscious program of resistance against colonial oppression since it functions among the colonized primarily at the level of the unconscious. 52 Nevertheless, Homi Bhabha’s argument provides us with an understanding of how the colonized Jews understand their ambiguous identity in the wake of the colonizer’s sovereignty.
Earlier post colonialists emphasize the function of stereotypes to be that of creating a gap between the colonizer and the colonized. But according to Bhabha’s analysis, Edward Said’s occidental stereotypes simply reflect static elements and thus they failed to notice anxieties and ambivalences within stereotypes during the process of injecting them into the colonized people. 53 In other words, instead of a one-sided fixation of stereotypes by the colonizer, through cultural exchange between the colonizer and the colonized, elements of stereotypes such as anxieties and ambivalences experienced by the colonized also entail a menace to the colonizer. To illustrate this, Bhabha argues that “self/other, master/slave” can be subverted by being inverted. 54 In this respect, David Huddart highlights that Bahbah contributes to understanding a complex economy of identity in which colonized and colonizer depend on each other. 55
Furthermore, Homi Bhabha focuses on the colonized’s mimicry, which functions as resistance to the colonizer’s culture. The colonizer creates mimic men, namely the educated class of the colonized for their benefits. But Bhabha insists that colonial mimicry is the desire for a reformed, recognizable other, as a subject of difference that is almost the same, but not quite. 56 For this reason, the colonized’s mimicry creates a new form of culture, which threatens the colonizer’s culture as well. According to Bhabha’s analysis, through a process of writing and repetition the colonized’s mimicry appears as a form of mockery. 57
Admittedly, Homi Bhabha’s two main concepts of stereotypes and mimicry lead to hybridity, which reflects an ambivalence that goes beyond the binary oppositions between the colonizer and the colonized. When the colonized experience the colonizer’s social and cultural influence their response reveals not so much an unchanged adoption of the colonizer’s mores as a hybridized form which challenges the boundaries of colonial discourse and sets up another colonial space for the negotiations of cultural authority. 58 For example, in the 19th century many missionaries brought the Bible to evangelize Koreans as well as imperial military power to submit them to imperial authority. Regardless of the missionaries’ intentions, to overcome a stratified society and imperial political oppression, Korean Christians created minjung theology, which is a Korean word, composed of two Chinese characters for “people” and “the masses”. 59
Stereotypes, mimicry, and hybridity in Ezra 9-10
Stereotypes: the Egyptians, the theological viewpoint of intermarriage
Scholars have long understood that the canonization of Hebrew scripture began in the period of the Persian Empire. It was at that time the Persian Empire allowed the authority of the colonized and sponsored the publication of laws throughout the Empire, especially during Darius’s reign. 60 This backdrop provides us with clues to analyze how the text of Ezra 9-10 was edited by the Persian authorities. In Ezra 9-10, it is observed that the Persian authorities make two salient stereotypes: (a) the negative evaluation of the Egyptians as the Persian Empire’s main rival; (b) the Deuteronomic negative viewpoint of the mixed marriage issues.
As many commentators have argued that the author of Ezra refers to Deut. 7:1-3 (cf. Ex. 34:15-16), the text of Ezra 9-10 is very similar to the text of Deut. 7:1-3
61
:
1 when the LORD, your God will bring you into the land that you go toward there to possess it // and he will drive away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and stronger than you 2 and the LORD your God will give them before you and you will strike them // You shall surely destroy them, you shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not favor them 3 and you will not intermarry with them // Your daughter you will not give to his son and his daughter you will not take for your son.
1 And when these had been completed, the officers stepped forward to say, the people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not withdrawn from the people of the lands //, according to their abominations, like those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites 2 For they have taken their daughters for them and for their sons, and mixed up the seed of holiness with the peoples of the lands //and the hand of the officers and the principals were the first in this disloyalty When one compares Deut. 7:1-3 with Ezra 9:1-2, the author of Ezra added one large nation, Egypt, in Ezra 9:1. In effect, while the Deuteronomist prohibits the Ammonites and the Moabites from membership among the Israelites in Deut. 23:3, he encourages the Israelites not to abhor the Egyptian in Deut. 23:7. It is significant that the author of Ezra reinterprets Deuteronomy using the Hebrew word תעב “abhor” in Deut. 23:7 to designate תועבה “abominations” of the Egyptian in Ezra. 9:1 (cf. Gen. 43:32; 46:34; Exod. 8:22; Lev. 18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; Lev. 20:13; Deut. 18:9). Why did the author of Ezra add the Egyptians in the lists of prohibitions?
On the basis of a postcolonial perspective, the author of Ezra added the Egyptians to the list of prohibitions under the sponsorship of the Persian Empire. In other words, the author’s negative evaluation of the Egyptians is one of the colonizer’s stereotypes. When Ezra began his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes I in 458 BCE. (Ezra 7), Egypt was one of the most troublesome provinces of the Persian Empire. Berquist argues that at least Ezra or Nehemiah served within Artaxerxes’ time, and the juxtaposition of the Persian Empire’s interests in conflict with those of the Egyptian / Greek coalition provide a helpful backdrop for understanding the work that one of these governors began and the other continued. 62 In Berquist’s historical analysis, early in Artaxerxes’ reign, Egypt and Greece united forces and revolted against the Persian Empire. 63 Berquist insists that Inarus-Pericles alliance had severely limited Persia’s ability to exercise naval power in the Mediterranean. 64 In this respect, Berquist points out that Ezra’s mission was to avoid the spread of the Egyptian-Greek alliance and to retain Yehud as a colony loyal to Persia. 65 In a similar vein, Gale Yee insists that being a mighty kingdom itself at the outermost corner of the empire made Egypt a persistent threat to the Persian center. 66 Thus, as she interprets Exodus 1-2 from the postcolonial perspective, she argues that depictions of Egypt, its pharaoh, and its people in Exodus 1-2 are highly stereotypical and even humorous.
As Homi Bhabha points out, stereotypes such as anxieties and ambivalences by the colonized also entail a menace to the colonizer. On the one hand, the author of Ezra added Egypt as one of the stereotyped nations in Ezra 9:1 for the purpose of giving it a negative image. However, the existence of Egypt allows us to see that Egypt appears to be a nation that is feared by the Persian Empire. Ezra’s negative evaluation on Egypt reflects the Persian Empire’s fear, although socio-economic approaches to Ezra 9-10 define the peoples of the lands as those who were not in exile rather than as foreigners.
The second stereotype in Ezra 9-10 is the Deuteronomist’s negative evaluation of the mixed marriage issue. In Ezra 9-10, the author of Ezra expresses the intermarriage with foreign women four Hebrew words: נשא “take” (9:2; 10:44), ערב “mixed up with” (9:4), חתן “intermarry” (9:14), and the hiphil form of ישב “cause to dwell” (10:2, 10, 14, 17, 18). In Deut. 7:3, the Deuteronomist briefly expresses the intermarriage with other ethnic groups with the Hebrew word חתן “intermarry.” By contrast, by describing the mixed marriage with four different Hebrew words, the author of Ezra emphasizes his negative viewpoints of mixed marriage. Furthermore, it is significant that there is a provisional inclusio with the introduction of the Hebrew word בדל “withdraw or separate” in Ezra 9:1 and its resumption in Ezra 10:11. Having introduced the content of the intermarriage and the divorce issue in Ezra 9:1-10:11, the author of Ezra enables the whole assembly to agree with Ezra’s coercive dissolution of the mixed marriage.
Moreover, in an attempt to prohibit mixed marriage with עמי הארצת “the peoples of the lands,” the author of Ezra describes the returnees as הקדש זרע “the seed of holiness” in Ezra 9:2. Since the returnees as the seed of holiness in Ezra 9:2 symbolize purity, the abominations of the peoples of the lands make them unclean. Scholars have noted that הקדש זרע “the seed of holiness” is an allusion to the Leviticus, especially in Lev. 19:19: “your field, you shall not sow with two kinds of seeds.” 67 Based upon Julia Kriesteva’s argumentation that the biblical language of purity and impurity in Leviticus is already grounded in the abject nature of the material body, Harold C. Washington argues that the community’s הקדש זרע “the seed of holiness, an unmistakably male emblem of purity” is opposed to the pollutions of the peoples of the lands (termed נדה, a specifically female uncleanness). 68 Thus, by reminding the defilements in the Leviticus, the author expects the returnees to prevent their intermarriage with the peoples of the lands.
As I explored the Persian Empire’s intermarriage issue above, the Persian authorities allowed scribes to describe mixed marriage as one of the negative stereotypes for social stability in Yehud. In one sense, too much emphasis on the prohibition of mixed marriage reflects the fear of the Persian Empire since the land and the property of the returnees could be diluted by mixed marriages. Unfortunately, in contrast to the Persian Empire’s expectation, the mixed marriage issue appears again in Nehemiah 13.
A Mimic man as Ezra and Hybrids as Shecaniah and those who tremble at God’s words
Some scholars have regarded Ezra as an invented character because of the ambiguity of his mission, especially how it would have benefited the Persians. 69 While the text of Nehemiah, the so called Nehemiah Memoir, is written in the first-person singular and contained reliable information written down by the main instigator of the events close to the time in which the events occurred, the historical settings in the Ezra’s Memoir (Ezra 7-10) raises Ezra’s historicity. 70 Regardless of Ezra’s historicity, the Ezra’s Memoir describes Ezra as a mimic man which reveals his hybrids: the Pro-Persian and the Jewish elite (Ezra 7:11). His ambiguous position is also reflected in Ezra 9-10. But what is striking to me is that the dissolution of mixed marriage was attempted by Shecaniah and those who trembled at God’s words. In this section, I will explore how Ezra as a mimic man followed the Persian Empire’s imperial agenda, while I compare Ezra to Udjahorresnet, the Egyptian priest and special advisor to the Persian Empire on Egyptian affairs. I will also analyze how Shecaniah and those who tremble at God’s words have effects on Ezra’s decision in regard to the dissolution of the mixed marriage. Their hybridity figures became a menace to the Persian Empire.
According to the Persian Empire’s agenda towards the western province, Ezra as a mimic man performed imperial orders, especially the prohibition of mixed marriage. In his article, The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that during the reign of Cambyses (538-521 BCE.), the performance of Udjahorresnet, belonged to the Egyptian priestly class, shed light on the understanding of the role of Ezra by the Persian Empire.
71
Udjahorresnet’s social and political activity is similar to Ezra’s, although as the Persian agents they performed in a different period of the Persian Empire. Blenkinsopp translates the autobiographical inscription of the Egyptian notable Udjahorresnet as follows: I petitioned the Majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cambyses, concerning all the foreigners who had settled in the sanctuary of Neith, that they be expelled from it, so that the sanctuary of Neith be restored to all its former splendor. So His Majesty commanded that all the foreigners who had settled in the sanctuary of Neith be expelled, and that all their houses be demolished together with all their impure things which were in this sanctuary... His Majesty commanded that the sanctuary of Neith be cleansed, and that all its personnel be returned to it, the [ ] and the hour-priests of the temple. His Majesty commanded that divine offerings be made to the great Neith, mother of the god, and to the great gods that are in Sais, as it had been before. His Majest commanded that all their festivals and processions be carried out as had been done previously. (lines 19-25)
72
According to the inscription of the Egyptian Udjahorresnet above, he performed the expulsion of foreigners in the temple of Egypt. Since his main purpose was to purify, that is, to pacify the very great turmoil in Egypt, he had to resolve the conflicts among the Egyptians. 73 Likewise, in Ezra 9-10, Ezra as a Pro-Persian supported the prohibition of intermarriage with foreign women within Yehud. The author of Ezra describes Ezra’s powerful authority by the Persian Empire as follows: (a) Ezra can appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates (Ezra 7:25; 8:36); (b) Ezra has a right to usurp the returnees’ property, and can deny memberships to the assembly of the exiles (Ezra 8:7). With these sponsorships of the Persian Empire, Ezra could perform his main purpose, the prohibition of the returnees’ intermarriage with foreign women, that is, those who were not in exile.
On the contrary, the author describes Ezra as both a scribe and a priest (Ezra 7:1-6, 11; 8:21; 10:10, 16; Neh. 8). Ezra as a Zadokite elite from Babylon is an expert in משה תורת “the Law of Moses” (Ezra 7:1-6, 11). For this reason, Ezra could reinterpret the Pentateuch in the context of the dichotomy between the returnees and those who were not in exile (Ezra 9). Above all, Ezra as a Zadokite priest has authority to lead the festival and to bring burnt offerings to the temple (Ezra 8:35). In Ezra 9-10, the author of Ezra no longer mentions his role as a scribe in an attempt to highlight his priestly authority. In the final section of Ezra 9-10, the author of Ezra describes him as הכהן “a priest” (Ezra 10:10, 16).
Despite Ezra’s double consciousness, his attitude in regard to the prohibition of mixed marriage creates anxiety or uneasiness, when describing the power of God and the power of the Persian Empire. In Ezra 9:8, 9, the author describes Ezra’s double consciousness as both a priest and a Persian agent. The author of Ezra uses the Hebrew word מחיה “preservation of life or reviving” for appreciating God and the Persian King, respectively. 74 Why does Ezra appreciate the Persian king’s reviving the Temple in Jerusalem as soon as he confesses God’s reviving of slavery? It is no doubt that Ezra’s double consciousness results in his lopsided viewpoint toward God or the Persian Empire.
For this reason, the narrative of Ezra 9-10 portrays Ezra as a passive character. The author of Ezra describes active characters: (a) the leaders who report the mixed marriage issues to Ezra (9:1); (b) Shecaniah, son of Jehiel, who suggest the dissolution of the mixed marriage and those who tremble at God’s words (9:4; 10:2-3); (c) the opposition of Jonathan and Jahzeiah (10:15). Instead of describing Ezra’s active prohibition, the leaders report the seriousness of the mixed marriage in advance (9:1). Shecaniah suggests the idea of divorce between the returnees and the peoples of the lands, and the idea of expulsion of foreign women and their children before Ezra proclaims it in Ezra 10:3.: And now let us make a covenant with our God to send away all women and those who have been born by them, in accordance with the counsel of my LORD and those who trembled at the commandment of our God // and let it be done according to Torah
In one sense, without Shecaniah’s suggestion, Ezra’s prohibition of the mixed marriage could not be carried out. In other words, although the Persian authorities educated Ezra as a Pro-Persian or a mimic man, his double identity interrupts his active attitude toward the prohibition toward his returnees. On the other hand, Shechaniah plays an important role in Ezra’s decision, although his identity was not defined, maybe one of the returnees as a hybrid. Shechaniah does not mention the Persian Empire but emphasizes the Law of God. In this respect, due to Ezra’s passive attitude, Shechaniah’s active role shows a resistance to the Persian Empire. Put another way, the Persian Empire encourages the prohibition of mixed marriage but never orders divorce between the returnees and the peoples of the lands. Perhaps, Shechaniah’s coercive decision results in Ezra’s disappearance from the Persian Empire since the divorce required enormous dowries by husbands according to ancient Near Eastern laws. 75 As Blenkinsopp assumes Shecaniah to be one of the tremblers (החרדים), he argues that tremblers in Ezra 9-10 and Isa. 66:1-5 are referring to a prophetic-eschatological group. 76 Therefore, in the narratives of Ezra 9-10, because Shecaniah and tremblers are hybrids, Ezra’s intermarriage policy for the Persian Empire functions as a resistance to the Persian Empire.
Lastly, it is important to notice Jonathan and Jahzeiah, in terms of their opposition to Ezra’s proclamation in Ezra 10:15: “only Jonathan, son of Asahel and Jahzeiah, son of Tikvah, they stood against this // and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” As Williamson points out in his commentary, it is hardly assumable what the Hebrew word זה “this” indicates. 77 : (a) this would be against the prohibition of mixed marriage; (b) this would be against the divorce of the returnees. Whatever they oppose against Ezra’s decision, it is significant that the colonized or the marginalized speak with their own voices against the imperial authorities. Perhaps, both Jonathan and Jahzeiah stood against Ezra with the help of the Levites in an attempt to resist the Persian Empire’s authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I explored why the Persian Empire prohibits the mixed marriage within Yehud from socio-economic perspectives. Based upon the Persian Empire’s historical settings and economic situation, the Persian Empire necessitated pro-Persians such as Ezra and Nehemiah who deal with the issues of the land and the property in the same way that it sent the Egyptian priest Udjahorresnet to resolve the conflicts in Egypt. However, due to Ezra’s double consciousness, Ezra is reluctant to actively perform the Persian Empire’s policy. Just as Udjahorresnet expelled foreigners in the Temple of Egypt, Ezra could expel those groups who intermarried with foreign women. But extremists, Shecaniah and tremblers, lead Ezra’s dissolution of mixed marriage. On account of this, some groups such as Jonathan and Jahzeiah opposed Ezra’s decision. Two different groups also show us another hybridity figure in the Bible. Be that as it may, their active attitude preserves in Ezra 9-10. But one cannot listen to Ezra’s own voice after Ezra 9-10. Even in Nehemiah 8, Ezra appears as a reticent character.
Footnotes
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
