10.PersiaThrough the JewishLooking-Glass
Persia holds aspecial place in Jewishtradition. Whereas the Bible’scastofvil- lains and oppressive states is along one, the Persian kingdom stands out as a shining exception.The victories of Cyrus toppled the Babylonian empire,the king released the Israelites from their bondage, ordered the restoration of their sacred objects, and authorized theirreturn to the homeland—even encouraged and helped to finance it. Cyrus, not surprisingly,receivesavery good press in Jewishsources. And so, by extension, does the Persianrealm under whose aegis the Jews dwelled quite contentedly(as far as the recordgoes)for two centuries thereafter.Cyrus enjoys extraordinarilyhighesteem from the author whom we conventionallylabel as Second Isaiah and in the booksofEzra-Nehemiah. Second Isaiah heapspraise upon him, proclaiming his triumphs over all foes, prophesying his victory over Babylon, his liberation of the exiles, and his instructions to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple, as the arm of the Lord.¹ The Book of Ezraontwo separate occa- sions records adecree (or two decrees) in which Cyrus officiallyauthorizes the construction of the Temple, the restoration of the sacredarticles, and provisions for paying the costs.² And allusion to his role in the creation of anew temple re- surfaces in the Sibylline Oracles.³ Nor is this rosy portrait of Cyrus apurelyJewishconstruct.Hegets high marks in Herodotusand in Aeschylus’ playthe Persae. Xenophon madehim the subjectofalaudatory fictional biography. Alexander the Great paidsignal homagetothe tomb of Cyrus in Pasargadae, orderingits repair,renovation, and enhancement.Itwas apoint of pride for the Macedonian king. The Jews certainlyhad reason to express gratitude.Cyrus’ successfulsup- planting of Babylonian rule made possible the Israelite return from exile and le- gitimized the reconstruction of the Temple, accordingtotradition. The portrait, however,istoo good to be true. Cyrus, as we know,did not always act as the gen- tle and generous conqueror.⁴ But that raises afundamental question. Whateverthe truth of the matter, whyshould the Jewish composers of Deutero-Isaiah and of Ezra-Nehemiah have presented apicture that underscored Jewish debt to agentile ruler and de- pendence upon aforeign power?Grateful Jews huddlingunder the protection of
Isa., ., ., .–., .–, .–. Ezra, .–, .–. Sib.Or., –. See J. Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia (London, ), –,with references. 230 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass the powerful prince is not the most uplifting image. Would this not simplyrein- forcethe idea of the helpless subordinate nation suffering under oppressive des- pots and prosperingunder benevolent autocrats?Such aconstruct of Persia would do little to bolsterthe self-esteem of the Jews. Iwant to reexamine the representation of Persianrulership in awhole range of Jewish texts. AndIwant to suggest that the portrait is not quite so flatteringas we customarilythink.Jewish writers who fashionedthe representation had more devious ends in view than mere gratitude towardorreassurance from the mighty monarch. The projected idea of Persia allowed them to reconceive their own so- ciety within alargerMediterranean empire. The prophecies of Second Isaiah herald the victories and benefactions of Cyrus the Great.Onthe face of it,the prophet shows remarkable prescience. Aconsensus sets the author in the earlyyears of Cyrus’ reign, prior to the fall of Babylon in 539,and thus agenuine anticipator of events.⁵ The proposition is implausible. Asharp prognosticator,informed of Cyrus’ taking of Ecbatana in 550 and of Sardis in 546,might have forecast thatBabylon was next on the agenda. But it would take considerable clairvoyancetoenvisageCyrus’ decree to liberate the exiles, rebuild Jerusalem, and restorethe Temple.⁶ Andgreater foresightstill would be required to record in advance the re-peopling of Judah and the construction of the walls of Jerusalem.⁷ This reads very much likethe clarity of hindsight.⁸
See, for instance, C.R. North, TheSecond Isaiah (Oxford, ), –;C.Westermann, Isaiah –:ACommentary (Philadelphia, ), –;P.R.Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Per- sia (Oxford, ), –;J.Blenkinsopp, Isaiah – (New York, ), .Doubts, however,haveappeared in A. Kuhrt, “Nabonidusand the Babylonian Priesthood,” Pagan Priests:Religion and Powerinthe Ancient World, ed. M. Beard and J. North, (Ithaca, ), –,esp. ;K.Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Minneapolis, ), –;J.Goldstein, Peo- ples of an Almighty God (New York, ), –. Isa., .–, .. Isa., ., ., .–. To be sure, the prophet speaks of the devastation of Babylon and the humiliation of its gods; Isa., .–, .–.Cyrus, in fact,proved to be agentle conquerorinBabylon, honored its deities,and spared the city;see the “Cyrus cylinder”,A,Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achae- menid Imperial Policy,” JSOT, , –;J.B. Pritchard, TheAncient Near East: An Anthol- ogyofTexts and Pictures (Princeton, ), –, –.The discrepancyhas often been pointedout; e.g. C.E. Simcox, “The Role of Cyrus in Deutero-Isaiah,” JAOS , , –.But the languageofSecond Isaiah is metaphorical here,the conventional thunder of prophets. The lines certainlydonot requirethat the author live beforeCyrus’ triumph in Bab- ylon;so, rightly, Goldstein, Peoples of an Almighty God, –.They represent,infact,aJew- ish spin on Cyrus’ deeds.The discrepancycauses no surprise. 10. Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass 231
The role of Cyrus in the conception of Second Isaiah is clear and consistent— and not necessarilytothe credit of the king.Cyrus serves as the instrumentof God. The author does not ascribe anysterlingqualities or lofty aims to the ruler of Persia. It is God who summonsCyrus to his service, delivers up nations to him, and subjects kingstohis power.⁹ Cyrus is the shepherd of the Lord, even his “anointed one,” whom God leadsbythe hand to do his will, i.e. to subdue nations and strip monarchs of their weapons.¹⁰ Even the title and authority of Cyrus derive from divineelection.¹¹ The Lordalone instructs his shepherd to an- nounce the rebuildingofJerusalem and its temple and to restorethe exiles.¹² God calls his agent to carry out predeterminedduties and to fulfill the wordofthe Lord.¹³ In short,Cyrus’ successagainst Babylon amountstolittle more than the discharge of divine commands.¹⁴ Deutero-Isaiah has, in effect,claimedfor Yahweh the imperial accomplishments of the Persian king.That work constitutes not so much celebration or admiration as usurpation. Cyrus’ victories came at the behest of God and for the benefit of the Jews.¹⁵ Deutero-Isaiah assumed pro- phetic garb to place aJewish stamp upon Cyrus’ achievements. Josephus, in his rewritingofthe story,got the messageright.Where did Cyrus getthe idea of liberating the Israelites and orderingthe reconstruction of the Temple?Hegot it from reading the Book of Isaiah!¹⁶ Astrikingly similar idea maybefound in the famous fiction of Alexander the Great at the gates of Jerusalem. The invincible Macedonian monarch, according to the tale, marched upon the HolyCity,intent upon taking it,but was stopped dead in his tracks. The HighPriest appeared before Alexander,dressed like avi- sion that Alexander had once had and that promised him conquest of the Persi- an empire. Alexander performed proskynesis and acknowledgedthe power of Yahweh. Jewishpriests duly displayedthe Book of Daniel to him—never mind that it had not yetbeen written—and it prophesied the fall of Persia at the hands of aGreek. That was all that Alexander needed. The story,asisclear,ap-
Isa., ., .. Isa., .–.. Isa., .–. Isa., ., .. Isa., .. Isa., .–. Indeed the futurebelongs to the people of Israel whowill be a “light unto the nations;” Isa., ., ., ., ..The covenant has now devolvedfromthe house of David to the Israelites as acollective;Isa., .–;cf. Blenkinsopp, Isa. –, ;Baltzer, Deut. -Isa., .Wheth- er this implies arejection of monarchygenerallyonthe part of Deut.-Isa., as is suggestedby R. Albertz, Die Exilzeit, .Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Stuttgart, ), –,ismorequestionable. Jos. A. J. .–. 232 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass propriates for Jewish ends the futureconquests of Alexander the Great.They had all been foretold and guaranteed by Yahweh himself.¹⁷ The parallel with Cyrus in Second Isaiah is close. Yahweh gave Cyrus the meanstocreate the Persianem- pire—and gave Alexander the means to destroy it.Inboth cases the Jews were beneficiaries. Their godcould claim credit for the imperial successesofthe mightiest of conquerors. The stories have less to do with history thanwith appro- priation. The conception by Second Isaiah gains reinforcement from the Book of Ezra. That text supplies two versions of apurported decree by Cyrus, one in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic, authorizingthe rebuildingofthe Temple in Jerusalem. The authenticity of those documents is disputed and dubious.But they reveal much about the Tendenz of the author. The book of Ezrabegins with Yahweh stirring up the spirit of Cyrus to issue an empire-wide proclamation. The edict asserts that Yahweh hasaccorded him all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed him to see to the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. The king then exhorts all of God’speople to moveto Jerusalem and assist in the construction of the Temple to the Lord, godofIsrael whose dwelling place is Jerusalem. Those who remain, he adds, should support the project with their wealth, resources,and voluntary donations.¹⁸ It is not easy to swallow this text as the genuine article. An open declaration to the entire realm that the Jewishgod had promised Cyrus all the kingdoms of the world can hardlybeimagined.¹⁹ Royal homagetothe gods of others, of course, causes no surprise. It waswise to accumulate protective deities and to encouragethe backing of their worshippers. But adeclaration to the world that Yahweh alone had accorded Cyrus his empire has altogetherdifferent resonance. The hand of the Jewish composer is unmistakable here. The text,with its stress on Yahweh’sresponsibility for Persian successes and Yahweh’sstimulus for the Per- sian edict to rebuild the Temple and reinstate the exiles, fitsperfectlywith the forecasts of Deutero-Isaiah.
Jos. A. J. .–.See the analysis in E. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: TheReinvention of JewishTradition (Berkeley, ), –,with referencestoearlier literature. Ezra, .–.This is not the placetoargue about whoismeant by “the remnant.” But it is most unlikelythat Cyrus directed gentiles all over his empiretoprovide financial assistanceto the Jews. Cf. E. Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra ,” JBL, , – ,esp. – ;H.G.M. Williamson, EzraNehemiah (Waco, ), . Acase for authenticity was made, with characteristic acumen and learning, by Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra ,” –.But it has not managedtoshakeoff all doubts.See L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah (London, ), –;P.R.Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (Leiden, ), –. 10.Persia Through the JewishLooking-Glass 233
No temple construction, in fact,took place in the years of Cyrus. The endeav- or resumed (or began) in the second year of the reign of Darius I, according to the narrative of Ezra.²⁰ The Jews who undertook it,with the leadership of Zerub- babel, claimed authorization from Cyrus’ original decree and persuadedthe Per- sian satrap to seek proof in the royal archivesofthe empire. In this context the author of Ezrarecords Cyrus’ decree asecond time. It is followed immediatelyby apurportededict of Darius. The king instructshis satrap to give the Jews free rein in erectingtheirtemple,tomake sure thatthey receive payment for theirexpens- es from the royal revenues, to supplythem daily with all the livestock needed for their sacrifices, as well as wine, oil, salt,and wheat,and to execute and destroy the property of anyone who obstructsthe orders! Darius concludes with aflour- ish, exhorting the godofthe Jews to topple anyking or people who attempt to undermine the decree and destroy the Temple.²¹ The tendentiousness here cannot be missed.Would the king single out Jews for such magnanimous treatment,put the taxes of the provinceattheir disposal, supplyall their needs on adailybasis, takevigorous and violent action against anyone who obstructs their cause, and invoke the godofthe Jews to overthrow kingsand peoples who violate his edict?One might notice in particularthe rath- er graphic detail in which the text describes the penalty to be inflicted upon any offender: he would be impaledupon abeam torn from his ownhouse before it is reducedtorubble!²² Darius mayhavesanctioned the rebuildingofthe Temple and even dugout the sacred vessels once plundered by Nebuchadnezzar and now in Persian possession (whyhad Cyrus not done so?), but the whole narrative is so encased in Jewishpartiality thatitmust be considered more construct than history. An importantmotif stands out in Ezra-Nehemiah. And this merits notice. The author consistentlyand repeatedlyinsists upon the close associationofJudaean fortunes—and indeedthe people’sown laws—with the rulers of Achaemenid Per- sia. The decrees of Cyrus and Darius, of course, exemplify this. But the theme runs throughout the work. Zerubbabel, for instance, claimed exclusiverights to building ahouse for the godofIsrael and asserted thatthoserights derive di- rectlyfrom the king of Persia.²³ This establishes unequivocallythe linkage be- tween Achaemenid authority and the worship of Yahweh. The Temple was dulyconstructed and completed, so we are told, in the sixth year of Darius. The text suitablyadds that this accomplishment came in accord with the com-
Ezra, .. Ezra, .–. Ezra, .. Ezra, .. 234 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass mand of God and with the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes.²⁴ The two sources of authority seem inseparable. The tight association emergesagain in the mission of EzratoJudaea. Artax- erxes’ letter of appointment to Ezraconcludes with the notable pronouncement that punishment be swiftlyapplied to those who do not complywith the lawof “your god”—and the lawofthe king.²⁵ The two are firmlyconjoined. The mission of Nehemiah receivedsimilar sanction.²⁶ Again and again the text reiterates its message. Worshippers of Yahweh enjoythe graceofthe Achaemenid court,in- deed require it to reinstall and enhance their own national traditions. The law of God and the lawofthe king are mutuallyreinforcing. But this prompts the samequestion raised with regard to Second Isaiah. Does this messagenot underline the dependency of the Jews upon the great power?Why should Jewishwriters belabor that point?Not an easy question. There maybemore subtletyand sub-texts than meet the eye. The Persianempire provides security and advantagefor the Jews, so the tradition indicates.But a closer readingofthe text suggests that the Achaemenid rulers wereless thanpar- agons of wisdom and virtue. The author,inclever fashion,could give his readers asense of superiority over their overlords. Afew examples can make the point.The discrepancy between Cyrus’ pro- nouncements on the one hand and his failuretoimplement them on the other stands out starkly. The king’spious pronouncementsabout building the Temple, exhorting subjects to supplythe means for construction, and restoring the sacred objects once pilfered by Nebuchadnezzar proved to be quite empty.When Darius came to the throne nearlytwo decades later, no Temple existed.²⁷ Thisdoes not redound to the credit of Cyrus. If the author of Ezrabebelieved, construction effortsresumed in the time of “Artaxerxes.” The reign is misplaced chronologicallyand the whole narrative has little claim on historicity.But the portrayal of the ruler matters. Opponents of the buildingprogram in JerusalemwrotetoArtaxerxes, warningthat restora- tion of the city and erection of its walls would leadtorebellion against the crown. The king bought the whole story,ordered his researchers to digupthe
Ezra, .. Ezra, .. Neh., .–, .–. To be sure, the narrative in Ezra, .–. indicates that money was collected, work begun, and the foundations laid, but resistance within the homeland halted matters. Even if true, this shows that Cyrus was too indifferent to see to the execution of his plans.But it is unlikelytobe true. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah,contemporaries of the actual rebuildingunder Darius, know nothingofany earlier efforts—let alone anydecrees by Cyrus. 10. Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass 235 records,and discovered thatJerusalemindeedhad arebellious history and that its monarchs had once ruled over all of Trans-Euphrates! Artaxerxes thus or- dered an end to anyconstruction.²⁸ Whatever one makes of this bizarre episode, it shinesnopositive light upon the king.He(and presumably his satraps) knew nothing of what was happeninginJerusalem. It took atendentious report to prod him into checking the records—wherehegot astill more tendentious report.Yet Artaxerxes swallowed it all, acted on misinformation and terminated the build- ing program. Not aflatteringportrait. Cyrus’ decree, still unimplemented, had to be sought out again in the reign of Darius. Indeedtherewas some scurrying about to find it.Darius directed the researchers to look for it in Babylon, onlytohaveitturn up in Ecbatana.²⁹ Evi- dentlyneither the king nor anyone else knew whereitwas! Areflection perhaps upon both Cyrus and Darius. The very fact that the decree (albeitinmuch altered form) had to be read out once more, thirty years afterits issue, onlyreminded the audience of how valueless it had been. Darius’ ownedict,after recovery of Cyrus’ decree, borders on excessive gen- erosity.The Persian monarch showers livestock and resources upon the Jews, even giving the priestscarteblanche to make dailyrequests of anything they wish and detailing the gruesome execution of anyone who fails to comply—hard- ly adignified posture for the ruler of the world.³⁰ Artaxerxes goes him one better in outfitting the mission of Ezra. The king provided him with an expense account of lavish proportions,more gold and sil- verthan could imaginablybetransported, hundreds of gallons of wine and oil, hundreds of bushels of wheat—and alimitless supplyofsalt.³¹ Perhaps the king soughttoflaunt his wealth. But the portrait of areckless spendthrift hardlyadds to his stature. To be sure, the principal impression remains that of aPersian kingdom com- mitted to the support and welfareofthe Jews. But the hints about flawed rulers, fruitlessactions, and heedless extravaganceadd adimension thatdiminishes their stature. Thecareful reader would find reason to question the esteem of the empire. The mildlymocking elements in Ezra-Nehemiah mayhavetriggered the in- corporation of an altogether new tale into this tradition. AGreek version appears
Ezra, .–. Ezra, .–.. Ezra, .–. Ezra, .–, .–.Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, –,rightlynotes the excesses here, and points to the absurdity of such acaravanofwealthallowed to travel without even abodyguard. 236 10.Persia Through the JewishLooking-Glass in the Septuagint,commonlyreferred to as IEsdras,not adirect translation but a hodgepodge of material somewhat rearranged and recast.One story, however, thrust into the narrative,appears nowhereelse and stands out as acenterpiece of IEsdras. The story takes place in the court of Darius, an amusing folk-tale or fable of three young bodyguards of the king.They made awager among themselves, ar- rangingthat each would choose what he considered to be “the most powerful thing,” defend his choice before the king,and the winner would be rewarded with rich gifts and prizes, elevatinghim to aposition close to the throne.³² The first youngman made acasefor wine as the most powerful element in the universe, the second claimed the king as strongest,and the third, the only one givenaname in the story,Zerubbabel, put forth his choice: women. But, having argued for his point,Zerubbabel suddenlyshifted gears and offered abet- ter alternative:truth. It represents justiceand righteousnessand it abides forever.³³ Zerubbabel’ssecond thoughts won the day. Darius immediatelypronounced Zerubbabel the wisest,promoted him to the statusofkinsman, and offered to grant anywish he might have.Ofcourse, Zerubbabel asked the king to carry out the vowhehad alreadymade to rebuild Jerusalem and to restorethe sacred vessels that Cyrus had confiscated from the Babylonians. Darius instantlyacced- ed to the request. He arranged for the safe conduct of Zerubbabel through his dominions, authorized substantial funds for erectingthe Temple, restored the sa- cred objects, and carried out all thatCyrus had once decreed. Zerubbabel, over- joyed, informed his fellow-Jews in Babylon, and touched off aweek-longfestival. Darius then gave the Jews asplendid send-off, with an armed escort—and a marchingband!³⁴ Such is the tale, asurprising and independent insert into anarrative other- wise drawn, however raggedly, from the canonical tradition. The motive for its insertion remains disputed. But Ifocus here on the significance of the story as aJewish portrayal of the Achaemenid monarch and the Persian court.³⁵ The whimsicality of the episodeneeds to be underscored. The arguments made by each of the bodyguards for his favored definition conveymorejocularity than sincerity.And they show very little respect for the monarch who sits in their audience and whose favorthey supposedlyseek to win. The first speaker touts wine as the most powerful of entities, noting that it meddles with the minds
IEsd., .–. IEsd., .–.. IEsd., .–.. Forwhatfollows,see also the analysis in Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –. 10. Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass 237 of king and commoner alike and that its imbiberspay no heed to the ruler or his satraps.³⁶ The double referencetothe monarch, in his presence, first as placed on aplane with all others, then as subjecttoslights, can hardlybeinnocent. The second speakerwas no more delicate or diplomatic. Although he took the line that the king’spower exceeded all, the mannerinwhich he chose to il- lustrate this wasfar from flattering. He referred to the king’sautocratic authority, his power of life and death, the compulsion he exercises,and the servility of his attendants.³⁷ This hyperbolic speech plainlyconveys the stereotypical imageof the despot,hardlyacharacterization designed to elicit the king’sapproval. Ei- ther the youthful speaker took areckless and dangerous line, careeningtoward self-destruction, or the whole speech wascomposed with tongueincheek. Zerubbabel’sinitial choice,namely that of women as the universe’smost powerful agents, also came with barbsatthe ruler.Heunblushinglyobserves that,while Darius holds swayinanempire that overawes all nations, he is a mere plaything in the hands of his own concubine. On one occasion, says Zerub- babel, she even removed Darius’ diadem, set it on her own head, and gave the king aslap for good measure. Nor wasthat an isolated instance. Darius, accord- ing to Zerubbabel, catered to her every whim, rejoiced in her good moods, and did all in his power to assuageher anger in abad mood.³⁸ Andevenwhen Zer- ubbabel abandoned his frivolousadvocacy of female power and substituted “truth” as his candidate for most potent of entities, he did not omit ajab at the king.Zerubbabel elevated truth to the highest pinnacle on the grounds that it embodies justice. This he contrasts notablywith the injusticethatlurks in wine, women, men—and kings.³⁹ The notionthat such speechescould be delivered before asitting king is, of course, preposterous.The fictitious scene, however,would be asourceofself-sat- isfied amusement for aJewishaudience. Darius, despite this parade of indignit- ies, took no offense, indeed heaped upon Zerubbabel all and more than he could ask to assure the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Discerningreaderscould onlycome away with the impression that Darius was adunce. In this version of the return from exile and the creation of the Second Temple, the Persianruler is not so much amagnanimous benefactor as awitless agent manipulated by the shrewd Jew. The Book of Daniel supplies onlyablurred imageofPersia. The diverse tales in the first half are set mostlyinBabylon. Cyrus appears but threetimes as a
IEsd., .–. IEsd., .–. IEsd., .–. IEsd., .–. 238 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass chronological marker (Daniel supposedlysurvivedinto his reign).⁴⁰ But the por- trayal of “Darius the Mede,” almostcertainlyafictitious character,inthe story of Daniel in the lions’ den does demand attention.⁴¹ It possesses some noteworthy similarities to the depiction of Persian royalty that we have witnessed in other Jewishtexts. The king is decidedlysympathetic to the Jewishgod and his prophet,pro- moting Daniel to highoffice, rejoicinginhis rescue, and declaring his own alle- giance to Daniel’sgod who carriessuch authority.Daniel, accordingtothe tale, was one of the king’sfavorites,appointed by him as one of his three chief min- isters and even considered to be in line for the toppost in the Achaemenidad- ministration. His position roused jealousywithin the officialdom and engen- dered aconspiracy among his enemies to discredit him with the king.Darius was induced to sign adocument that outlawed prayers to anyone but himself for aperiod of thirty days,any violators to be hurled into apit of lions. As the conspirators knew,Daniel prayed regularlytoYahweh, and he continued to do so in the period of the ban. He was easilydiscovered and reportedtothe king as acriminaloffender who had transgressed the prohibition. Darius heardthe news with great distress and cast about for means to save Danielfrom this cruel fate. But his own decree put him in astrait-jacket.AsDarius’ evil counse- lors reminded him, no lawofthe Medes and Persians,once signed by the king, can be revoked.⁴² The reluctant monarch had to go along with the plot and or- dered Danieltobethrown to the lions—though not without offering him the hope that his godwill come to his rescue. Not that Darius was all that confident. He spent asleepless night in fastingand anxiety,refusingeventhe companyof concubines.Atfirst light of dawn, the king nervouslyapproached the sealed lions’ den, calling out Daniel’sname with an anguished cry.Much to his relief and joy,Daniel answered back with the news that his prayers to God had clamp- ed the jaws of the lions, and he wassafe and sound. Darius immediatelyre- versed the whole process, releasing Daniel from the pit and tossing his accusers in instead, togetherwith their wivesand children, wherenoprayers sufficed to
Dan., ., ., .. Little progress has been made in identifying “Darius the Mede” with anyparticular Achae- menid monarch sincethe efforts of H.H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four WorldEmpires in the Book of Daniel (nd ed.), (Cardiff, ). Alarge bibliographyattests to the fruitlessness of the quest.For some references, see J.J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis, ), –. Dan., .–.Onthe inviolability of the king’sdecrees, see Esther, ., .;Diod. Sic. ..But the notion is questionable in view of Herodotus, ..See the discussion in Col- lins, Daniel, –.Infact,Ahasuerus’ edict on behalf of the Jews in Esther, . was itself a reversal of his own previous legislation. 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass 239 save them.⁴³ The story concludes with amagnanimous gesture on the part of Da- rius. The king issued adeclaration throughout his realm, to every nation, people, and languagegroup dwellingwithin it.The decree eulogized Daniel’sgod, his swaytoendureforever,his power to work wonders exemplified by the rescue of Daniel, and his kingdom never to be destroyed. And it commands all of Da- rius’ subjects to fear and revere the godofDaniel.⁴⁴ The portrayal of “Dariusthe Mede” in the Book of Danielhas some notable similarities to the depictions of Persianroyalty in the texts discussed earlier.The king is decidedlysympathetic to the Jewish godand to his prophet,promoting Daniel to highoffice,rejoicinginhis rescue, and declaring his own allegiance to the divinity who carries such authority.The association of the Achaemenid crown with the Jewish cult goes hand in hand with the alliance between the two in Second Isaiah, Ezra-Nehemiah and IEsdras. Andhere again the king,de- spite the awesome extent of his power,does not call the tune. “Darius” is meekly misled and deceivedbyhis advisers, condemns Danielwhen they forcehim into acorner,awaits helplesslythe fate of his favorite,and nearlycollapses in relief when his fears proveunfounded. This is no “take-charge guy.”“Darius the Mede” was as much apushover as his counterpart in IEsdras. Jewish readers could gain yetafirmer sense of their own superiority. The relatively mild mockery of aPersianking that appears in the canonical text of Daniel becomes more pointed parodyinthe Greek additions to thattext. The additions include two brief tales commonlytermed “Beland the Dragon,” welded together, which reflectasharper and more sardonic commentary on the foibles of Persian monarchs. The first fable depicts Daniel at the court of Cyrus, founder of the Achaeme- nid empire who was mentioned but not developed in the biblical Daniel. Cyrus, who had become overlord of Babylon, adopted its principal deity,here termed Bel, in whom he had implicit faith. The king asked Daniel, whom he considered the wisest of his counselors,also to payhomagetothis divinity.After all, Bel demonstratedhis existencedailybydevouring vast quantities of food and wine thatweredeposited in his shrine. Daniel, of course, loyal to the godof his own people, scorned idols, and indeed expressed amusement at the king’s gullibilityinbelieving that an object of clayand bronze could consume anything at all. Cyrus, now confused, turned to his priestly advisers and demanded proof that the godactuallyate the stores provided for him every day. The priestspro- posed an experiment wherein the food would be left as usual but the door of
Dan., .–. Dan., .–. 240 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass
Bel’stemple be locked and sealed to be sure that none but the godwould have access to it.They weresecureinthe knowledge of asecret underground passage- way, unknown to the naive king,through which the priestsand their entire fam- ilies passed each night and carried off all the provisions. But Daniel managed to foil this dastardly scheme. He had the floor of the shrine sprinkled with ashes, a tell-tale device which, in the morning,showed the incriminating footsteps of the conniving priests. Cyrus himself nearlyupset the plan, having forgotten about the ashes and almost bargedinto the shrine wherehewould have inadvertently scattered the evidence. Daniel, once again laughing at the king’sguilelessness, had to restrain him physically. Once the prophet pointed out the distinctive foot- prints on the floor,Cyrus at last gotthe message. He ordered the execution of the priestsand their families and gave Daniel freerein to destroy the statue and the temple of Bel.⁴⁵ The implications of the tale stand out starkly. Cyrus, lord of Babylon and sovereign of the Persian empire, depends on the wits and skill of his Jewish ad- viser.The king himself lacks bothacuity and common sense, credulous and de- ceivedbyhis priests. Indeed the author makes sport of the benighted Cyrus by having Danieltwicebreak up in laughter over his naiveté and actuallyblock his path lest he destroy the testimonythat he had himself agreed to have set in place just the night before. The thrusts that weresomewhat subtle and indirect in Ezra-Nehemiah, IEsdras,and canonicalDaniel are here unmistakable. The master of the universe is abit of abuffoon. The connected tale conveys acomparable portrait.The thick-headed Cyrus did not learn lessons quickly. Having givenuponBel, he turned to another Bab- ylonian object of worship, agreat serpent or dragon. Thisone he proudlydis- playedtoDaniel as acreatureofflesh and blood, no bronze idol. So, whynot worship him?Daniel handled this one even more swiftlyand effectively.He told the king thathecould kill this purporteddivinity without even the use of asword or aclub. Andheproceeded to do so by feeding the snake aconcoction of pitch, hair,and fat thatcaused the hapless creaturetoburst its insides and blow apart.The rest of the story is avariant on the lions’ den tale. The Babylo- nian priestsintimidatedthe king into orderingDaniel to be tossed into the pit of lions. But of course Daniel survived. And the priestsweretossed into the pit,to be instantlydevoured by lions. Cyrus now publiclyproclaimed the supremacyof Daniel’sgod.⁴⁶
Dan., .–. Dan., .–. 10.Persia Through the JewishLooking-Glass 241
Hereagain virtue triumphs and evildoers are crushed, the Lordthrough his agent has trumped idols and idolators.Cyrus retains his throne, and the empire is intact. But the monarch hardly cuts an admirable figure. He had put his faith in an absurd creaturewho was blown to bits by an unappetizingmeal, he al- lowed himself to be overawed by his ownsubordinates, and he switched as swiftlytoDaniel’sgod as he had from Beltothe dragon. Weakness, vacillation, and fatuity emerge as his principal characteristics. The lesson is clear enough.If Jews successfullynegotiated their position within the Achaemenid realm, it must have come through their ownresourcefulness and talents—not through the atten- tion of clownish Persian princes.⁴⁷ One lasttext can make the point in fuller fashion: the Book of Esther.The entire work is devoted to anarrative of Jews dwelling in the Persianempire. Itscomposition dates to the Persian period itself, or perhaps abit later.The story is familiar and need not be summarized in detail. Our focus remains on the depiction of the sovereign and his relations with the Jews.⁴⁸ The narrative takes place in the reign of Ahasuerus (evidentlyXerxes) who hosts aspectacular six month banquet enjoyed by all the officials, satraps,gov- ernors, and military commanders throughout his realm. This alone should prompt readers to wonder about aking who tied up his entirepolitical and mili- tary officialdom for half ayear in the palace—while leaving the empire untended. Ahasuerus then, after his wife Vashti refusedtoappear before his guests and to be ogled by them, not onlydismissed her from the palace but sent aproclama- tion throughout his realm declaring that all women were obliged to follow the wishesoftheir husbands.⁴⁹ Such adecree, of course, onlyadvertised to the world thathecould not even control his own wife! As is well known, Ahasuerus arranged (again on the advice of acounselor)a contest to select anew bride, acontest won by the Jewess Esther.But matters soon took aturn for the worse for Jews. Aconflictensued between the king’s chief vizier Hamanand Esther’scousin Mordecai, Haman took graveoffense
The treatment here adapts in part the discussion in Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, – .For somewhat different interpretations,see, e.g., M.J. Steussy, Gardens in Babylon: Narra- tiveand Faith in the Greek Legends of Daniel (Atlanta, ), –;Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: JewishIdentity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Rev.ed. (Grand Rapids, ), – ;L.M. Wills, TheJewishNovelinthe AncientWorld (Ithaca, ), –. The analysis here reliesonthe version preserved in the Masoretic text. Fordiscussionofthe different extant versions,see K. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther:Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta, ); C.V. Dorothy, TheBooks of Esther:Structure, Genre, and Tex- tual Integrity (Sheffield, ); R. Kossmann, Die Esthernovelle vom Erzählten zur Erzählung (Lei- den, ). Esth., .–. 242 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass at aslight perpetrated by Mordecai and decided to avengehimself upon Morde- cai’speople. The vizier persuadedthe compliant Ahasuerus to decree the anni- hilation of all Jews within his kingdom and confiscatetheirproperty.Ahasuerus himself had no cause for complaint against Jews, but went along mindlesslywith Haman.⁵⁰ Unanticipated events, however (without anydivine intervention), sud- denlyreversed matters.Ahasuerus, sufferingfrom insomnia, had his aides read to him the most soporific of texts,the royal chronicles. Therein he discovered that Mordecaihad once savedthe king’slife by warningofanassassination at- tempt.Ahasuerus had evidentlynot even rememberedthe occasion—even though he had personally ordered its insertion into the chronicles. But he would make up for it.Ahasuerus now arranged for special honors to be paid to Mordecai, much to the chagrin of Haman.⁵¹ And worse was to come for the vizier.Esther the queen invited bothAhasuerus and Haman to abanquet and there pleaded with the king not to carry out the planned destruction of the Jews. The baffledsovereign wondered who would have ordered such awicked deed, completelyoblivious to the fact thathis fellow-guestHamanhad put the whole idea in his headand that he had himself signed the order!⁵² Ahasuerus, suddenlyenlightened and indignant,brieflytook the air in the garden, then re- turned to find Hamaninacompromising position. The vizier had been pleading with Esther for his life, sprawled across the couch as an abject petitioner. Aha- suerus, however,interpreted the scene as an attempted rape, thus sealing the doom of Haman.⁵³ In other words, the reversaloffortune for the Jews came not as an act of rationality but as an absurd misconception on the part of the moronic monarch. Ahasuerus swiftlybecame putty in the hands of Esther and Mordecai, much as he had been manipulated in Haman’shands. They requested awritten order that would reverse the previous decree on the Jews. This one would give Jews au- thority to engageinthe very slaughter and plunder of their enemies thathad been plannedfor them. Ahasuerusnot onlyreadilycomplied, but gave Esther and Mordecai full authority to draw up anyedict that they wishedinhis name and he would sign it.⁵⁴ This is clearlynot amonarch who was paying much heed to the affairs of his empire. And when wordcame thatJews, embold- ened by the new edict,had felled five hundred men in the citadel at Susa, Aha-
Esth., .–. Esth., .–, .–. Esth., .–. Esth., .–. Esth., .–. 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass 243 suerus reported the matter to Esther with great glee.⁵⁵ The clueless king evidently overlooked the fact thatthe victims werehis own Persians! It should now be obviousthatthe doltish Ahasuerus bears aclose resem- blance to the inept and occasionallyridiculous Achaemenids who people the pages of Ezra-Nehemiah, IEsdras, Daniel 6, and the Greek additions to Daniel. To summarize. Creative Jewish writers did not denythe fact thattheirpeople recovered the homelandand rebuiltthe Temple with Persianpermission. Nor did they conceal the fact that Jews dwelled for two centuries under Persianoverlord- ship rather thanasanautonomous entity.But their literaryconstructs recon- ceivedthe situation in ways most comfortable and pleasurable for their own self-image. The triumphs of Cyrus became the awards of Yahweh, Achaemenid monarchs lavished excessive gifts upon Jews and made implausible public pro- testations on their behalf, Jewishprophets and leaders manipulated dim-witted Persianprinces to further their ends, and one hapless monarch even gave Jews the green light to massacre his ownpopulation. The texts resonatewith dispar- agement rather thandeference. These works have little to do with history.But they carry vital meaning for the reflective understanding of Jews who dwelled (or whose ancestors dwelled) within the confines of the Persian empire. Common impression todaystill has it that Persia was friend and allyofthe Jews, benefactor and protector of their in- terests, responsible for their restoration and champion of their well-being.Cyrus and Darius, in particular, stand on the sideofthe virtuous, shining images to set against the dark visages of aNebuchadnezzar or an Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet the Jews did not quite present it in thatfashion. The texts,oncloser scrutiny, show amore cynical and subversive stance. Framers and audience of these tales, whether living in the Persian eraorlooking back on it in the Hellenistic age, cultivated aself-perception that minimized gratitudefor benefaction and down-playeddependence on the greater power.Instead, they claimed Cyrus’ vic- tories as exhibitingthe power of Yahweh,they tied Persianpolicy to the laws of Moses, they represented royal actions as reliant upon Jewishinitiative,and they held kingsuptomockery.The Achaemenids might rule an empire, but they bor- rowed their moral and intellectual authority from the Jews. Persianpower in this culturalconstruct is simultaneouslyenhancedand diminished.Itcomes pack- aged as aJewish appropriation.⁵⁶
Esth., .–. Comments and criticism by Peter Bedfordand Josef Wiesehöfer have been of highvalue for the paper and have earned the gratitude of the author.For additional resources on the issues discussed in this article see the following: P.-R.Berger, “Der Zyroszylinder mit dem Zusatzfrag- ment BIN II, und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch,” Zeitschrift fürAssyriolo- 244 10.Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass
gie, , –;J.Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: ACommentary (Philadelphia, ); P. Briant, “Histoire impériale et histoire régionale àpropos de l’histoire de Juda dans l’empire achéménide,” Congress VolumeOslo :Suppl. to Vetus Testamentum, ,ed. A. Lemaire and M. Saebo (Leiden, ), –;J.Briend, “L’édit de Cyrus et sa valeur historique,” Transeu, , –;J.J.Collins, “‘The Kinghas become aJew.’ The Perspective on the Gne- tile World in Bel and the Snake,” DiasporaJews and Judaism, ed. J.A. Overmanand R.S. MacLenn- an (Atlanta, ), –;M.Delcor, Le livre de Daniel (Paris, ); R. De Vaux, TheBible and the Ancient Near East (Garden City, ); P. Frei, “Die persische Reichsautorisation,” Zeits- chrift füraltorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, () , –;A.E. Gardner, “The Purpose and DateofIEsdras,” JJS, , –;E.S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge,Mass, ); J. Harmatta, “The Literary Pattern of the Babylonian Edict of Cyrus,” Acta Antiqua, (), –;L.F.Hartman and D.F. Di lella, TheBook of Daniel (Garden City, ); C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther,and Jeremiah: TheAdditions (Garden City, ); J.M. Myers, Iand II Esdras (Garden City, ); R. H. Pfeiffer, HistoryofNew Testament Times (New York, ); K.F.Pohlmann, Studien zumdritten Ezra (Göttingen, ); U. Rütterswörden, “Die persische Reichsautorisation der Thora: Fact or Fiction?” Zeitschrift füraltorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, () , –;H.Schaudig, Die Inschriften von Nabonids Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen (Münster, ); J. Schüpphaus, “Das Verhältnis vonLXX-und Theodo- tion-Text in den apokryphen Zusätzenzum Danielbuch,” ZAW, (), –;E.Schürer, A Historyofthe JewishPeople in the Time of Jesus Christ, III. rev.ed. by G. Vermes,F.Millar,and M. Goodman(Edinburgh, ); Z. Talschir, IEsdras:FromOrigin to Translation (Atlanta, ) and IEsras:AText Critical Commentary (Atlanta, ); C.C. Torrey, EzraStudies (Chicago, ); J.W. Watts, Persia and Torah: TheTheoryofImperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (At- lanta, ); J. Wiesehöfer, “‘Reichsgesetz’ oder ‘Einzelfallgerechtigkeit’?Bemerkungen zu P. FreisThese vonder Achämenidischen ‘Reichsautorisation,’” Zeitschrift füraltorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, () , – and “The Medes and the Ideaofthe Succession of Empires in Antiquity,” Continuity of Empire: Assyria,Media, and Persia, ed. G. Lanfranchi and R. Rollinger(Padova, ); Y.M. Yerushalmi, Diener von Königen und nicht Diener von Dienern (Munich, ).