87 THE FATE FUTURE ZERUBBABEL AND OF (“ the son of...”) for Shesh-bazzar suggests a studied disinterest in his family connections. The image of David in Ezra-Nehemiah requires a non-messianic reading of the book 42. Only in Ezra 3,10 is David called “king [of Israel]”, but it is only his role as a liturgist that is in view (cf. Ezra 8,20). There is a possible allusion to the extensive kingdoms of David and Solomon in Ezra 4,20, which refers to “powerful kings” who ruled from Jerusalem over Syria-Palestine. The Davidic-Solomonic period is not mentioned in the historical view provided by the prayer of Nehemiah 9, which only has a generic reference to “our kings” in 9,32 and 34. The architectural use of the name David (Neh 12,37 – 2x; cf. Neh 3,16) and references to his liturgical role (Neh 12,45.46) and to his role as prophet (Neh 12,24.36) are found in Nehemiah 12 that mentions him by name some six times, but there is nothing that says or implies an expectation of a future Davidide who will put everything right 43. Within Ezra-Nehemiah, the only person ascribed as having Davidic descent is the minor character Hattush (Ezra 8,2). We must reject the suggestion sometimes made that Nehemiah had Davidic ancestry (Nehemiah 2). The Persian monarch valued Nehemiah’s service and was loath to spare him and so asked how long he would be gone and when he would return (2,6). Consistent with this interpretation, the designation of the city of Jerusalem as “the place of my [Nehemiah’s] fathers’ tombs” (2,3) shows that the boon was made by Artaxerxes as a personal favour to a favoured servant 44. The city’s designation is no indication or hint of any connection of Nehemiah with the royal family (cf. Neh. 3,6: “the tombs of David”) 45. This is too weak a foundation on which ZAW 95 (1983) 111-112. According to Dion, Shenazzar is derived from an Akkadian name referring to the moon god (Sin), but Shesh-bazzar comes from a name referring to the sun god (Shamash). R. ALBERTZ, “The Thwarted Restoration”, Yahwism after the Exile. 42 Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Period (eds. R. ALBERTZ – B. BECKING) (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Winona Lake, IN 2004) 16: “ The books of Ezra and Nehemiah ... wrote a history of Persian Judah as if the monarchic restoration had never been at issue” (suspension points mine). S . J A P H E T , “Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?”, Israel 43 Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (eds. A. de PURY – T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI) (JSOTSS 306; Sheffield 2000) 153. As pointed out by A. HURVITZ, “twrbqAtyb and μlw[Atyb : Two Funerary 44 Terms in Biblical Literature and their Linguistic Background”, MAARAV 8 (1992) 59-68, the closest biblical analogy to the expression used by Nehemiah are the words found in the mouth of Barzillai in 2 Sam 19,35-37. S e e the critical review of U. K E L L E R M A N N , N e h e m i a . Q u e l l e n , 45 Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102; Berlin 1967) by J.A. EMERTON,