85 THE FATE FUTURE ZERUBBABEL AND OF (cf. Hag 1,1; 2,2 etc.), and the narratorial reluctance to give them their official titles is best explained by the author’s desire to foreground the role of the entire people 34. In Ezra 3,1, the gathering of the people alerts us to expect a cultic occasion, and their two leaders are listed in 3,2. Over against their first mention as part of a list of leaders (cf. 2,2), each man is now given his patronym: “Jeshua the son of Jozadak” and “Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel”. Exceptionally, Jeshua is named before Zerubbabel, no doubt because of the cultic nature of the task (building an altar and offering sacrifice), Jeshua being a priest (3,2: “with his fellow-priests”) 35. Zerubbabel precedes Jeshua in Ezra 2,2, 3,8, 4,3, 5,2; Neh 7,7 and 12,1. Zerubbabel appears without Jeshua in Ezra 4,2 (as the recognised leader of the work of rebuilding) and Neh 12,47 (matching Nehemiah, another governor), and Jeshua without Zerubbabel in Neh 12,7 (a verse that only lists priests) 36. The point is that Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Joshua) virtually never act alone. They usually act as a pair, and in concert with the people as a whole, reflecting the tendency of Ezra-Nehemiah to downplay individual leaders in favour of group participation 37. These two leaders actually play a minimal role in Ezra 5-6 when the work of building the temple recommences after the delay, for they are not mentioned again after 5,2. The names of individuals (5,2) are now replaced by the general designation “the elders of the Jews” (5,9), and we hear no more about Zerubbabel and Jeshua in chapters 5 and 6, so that these two leaders are not the ones credited with finishing the temple. As for Zerubbabel’s unexplained disappearance 38, this is a pseudo-mystery, for the L.L. GRABBE, Ezra-Nehemiah (OT Readings; London 1998) 16. 34 F.I. ANDERSEN, “Who Built the Second Temple?”, ABR 6 (1958) 4, n. 2. 35 The Jeshua mentioned in Ezra 3,9 is not Jeshua son of Jozadak but is the 36 Jeshua listed in 2.40 along with the other Levites (as indicated by his pairing with Kadmiel in both verses). The comments of JAPHET, “Shesh-bazzar and Zerubbabel, I”, 86 37 [addition mine] are pertinent: “The highlighting and centering of the public’s role in the events [of Ezra 1-6], and the resultant dimming of the figures and roles of the leaders are particularly striking”. See her discussion on pages 80- 89. Cf. T.C. ESKENAZI, In An Age of Prose. A Literary Approach to Ezra- Nehemiah (SBL.MS 36; Atlanta, GA 1988) 48-53; S. JAPHET, “Shesh-bazzar and Zerubbabel – Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah, II”, ZAW 95 (1983) 220-225. S c h o l a r s have not been slow to provide explanations for the 38 “ d i s a p p e a r a n c e ” of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. See J. F L E I S H M A N , “The Investigating Commission of Tattenai: The Purpose of the Investigation and its R e s u l t s ” , HUCA 6 6 (1995) 88-90, and T.J. L E W I S , “The Mysterious Disappearance of Zerubbabel”, Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients. Essays Offered to Honor Michael V Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday .