Evangelion

I agree that Persian and Babylonian influences were responsible for bringing in a bunch of ideas about angels and demons. This occurred during the Jewish captivity.

But to say that "The Persian empire essentially wrote the Bible in the form that we have it today" is to make an extraordinary claim, for which I now require you to present the corresponding extraordinary evidence.

You do have some, right?

Right?

Evangelion

Straw men? I'm having fun with my satire.

lpetrich

I think that there are some things original about the Bible and the Abrahamic religions, or at least things independently invented.

Exclusive monotheism

The oldest example on record is Akhanaton (Amenhotep IV) (1369-1332 BCE) and his worship of the sun god Aton. But it was vigorously suppressed by his successors, who chiseled out his name and called him "The Great Criminal."

This was some centuries before the emergence of the YHWH-only movement in ancient Israel, and it's doubtful that there was much influence, although Psalm 104 seems similar to Akhanton's Hymn to the Sun.

More contemporary is Zoroastrianism, the official religion of the Persian Empire, but there was not much chance of influence before that empire's conquest of the Middle East.

This may be distinguished from non-exclusive forms of monotheism, like Stoicism (other deities are lesser beings) and Hinduism (other deities are aspects of the single big one).

Opposition to idolatry

Idolatry is a very wicked sin in the Abrahamic religions; the writers of the Bible and the Koran never tire of denouncing it, though some sects are known for abundant idolatry under some other name.

The closest thing I can think of is Herodotus mentioning that Zoroastrians tend to consider it silly to make statues of deities.

Resting every seventh day

For the writers of the Bible, doing so became very important after the Babylonian exile, and this was even projected onto the origin of the Universe.

The wickedness of eating pork

Greg2003

Ezra was an agent of king Cyrus. That means he didn't come from babylon, he came from persia. He was ordered by Cyrus, a zoroastrian, to go to persia and read the law to them. The people had never heard this law before and wept at all it asked them to do, including divorce their wives because they weren't pure jews (a zoroastrian tradition; you couldnt marry non-zoroastrian women) The purity codes of deuteronomy mirror the purity codes of zoroastrianism. Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the annointed one or messiah. Ezra and his team of priests have to translate the law into the jews language. Ezra starts the feast of booths that the people had never before practiced, even though its supposedly commanded by Moses; this feast also mirrors a similar feast in zoroastrianism. Ezra, like most of the priests and artisans and intellectuals and financial experts and merchants who "returned" from babylon where really for all we know Persian and babylonian agents given a charge to set up a persian friendly state. This they did, by creating out of the existing religious and cultural mythology an antimonorchical temple centered religion that viewed egypt as the historical enemy and persia as the great saviour. This was a brilliant bit of social engineering by persia that was so successful it gave birth to one of the most tenacious ethnic minority identities the world has ever seen.
By the way a recent PBS show supported the view that Ezra was the first to present the pentatuch to the jewish people. Since he is clearly a persian agent, it follows that perians essentially composed the pentatuch as we have it today.

Mageth

This may be distinguished from non-exclusive forms of monotheism, like Stoicism (other deities are lesser beings) and Hinduism (other deities are aspects of the single big one).

That last bit sounds similar to the Christian Trinity concept.

Evangelion

Ezra was a Jew, not a Persian.

Thus:

• Ezr 7:1-5.
  Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah,
  The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub,
  The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth,
  The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki,
  The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest:

Ezra was a Jew of priestly lineage. He could trace his family all the way back to Aaron.

No, he was order to read the letter that Cyrus had written to the Jews.

Thus:

• Ezra 7:11.
  Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel.

Notice that Ezra was "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD." This was the Law of Moses.

Thus:

• Ezra 7:6-10.
  This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him.
  And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.
  And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.
  For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.
  For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

Wildly false. The laws of divorce and purity had already been instituted by Moses, and both of them pre-date the Persian captivity.

Irrelevant. The Hebrew word simply means "annointed", and was used in reference to the kings of Israel and the priests of the tabernacle and temple. Its eschatological significance was separate from this common, everyday use.

Nowhere are we told that it was necessary to translate the Law into the Jews' language.

They had never practiced it because many of them had been born in captivity, and the observance of the Law of Moses had ceased among them.

Which feast? And even if it does appear to be somewhat similar, who cares?

*snip*

"For all we know"? This is blatant speculation. It also ignores the clear lineage of Ezra, which is spelled out in the early verses of Ezra 7.

Meanwhile, let's get back to that letter of Artaxerxes:

• Ezra 7:12-26.
  Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time.
  I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
  
  Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counselors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;
  And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counselors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem,
  And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem:
  That thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem.
  And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God.
  
  The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem.
  And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure house.
  And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily,
  Unto a hundred talents of silver, and to a hundred measures of wheat, and to a hundred baths of wine, and to a hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much.
  Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?
  
  Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
  And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.
  And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

This is an edict of religious freedom.

Observe:

• The consistent references to "thy God" and "thy God in Jerusalem. Artaxerxes is not referring to his own gods. He refers specifically to the God of Israel.
  
• The reference to "all such as know the laws of thy God." Clearly, Artaxerxes knows that there are some (like Ezra) who are indeed familiar with the Jews' religion, and he empowers Ezra to employ these people in the re-education of their fellow Jews.

The record itself militates against your... theory. (For want of a better word.) The evidence to support your claims, just isn't there.

"I saw it on TV. It must be true." Well, of course...

No, he is not "clearly a persian agent" at all. This entire theory is exquisitely fanciful.

If you have some evidence to support it, now would be the ideal time to present that evidence.

DrJim

How can it be demonstrated that any of the correspondences referred to in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (oral or written) are authentic? Did Ezra even exist? Why doesn't Ben Sirach mention him in his review of heroes of the people?
The redactional and source criticism of these books hinges on pretty flimsy evidence as far as I can tell.

It stands to reason that the Persians would have kept an eye on their administrators in Jerusalem. But this does not mean that they mandated everything that elite did. The interests of the Jerusalem elite should not be seen as identical to the interests of the emperor. The question to my mind is not whether Persia write Torah, but rather of an elite class of priests, administrator and scribes in Jerusalem negotiating their way through imperial obligations, influence (perhaps even unconscious influence) from 'foreign' religious ideas, the elite's own claim to status within Judean society, a counter to rival claims from Samaria about being the centre of Yahwistic religion, and their own desire for independence from Persia. Thus, in their texts, the Persian king does god's will for God's 'special' people. Ezra and Nehemiah could well be fictional heroes, representing for the late Persian or Hellenistic Jews the 'legitimate' start for a 'post-exilic' society.


Even as much as the Jerusalem elite had to 'toe the line' with the empire, one might expect their texts to express a certain undercurrent of resistance to empire, and a firm statement that they were not created to be vassals, but free.
I'm not so sure the empire would have always been paranoid about this, so long as the military and economic situation was stable and no-one in Judah, or elsewhere, got too ambitious, stopped paying taxes or whatever.

There is a book some of you might want to read somtime on this subject: James W. Watts (editor), Persia and Torah, The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, (SBL Symposium, 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001) I have it but I've been too busy to go through it completely. Lots of different views are expressed from some very notable scholars. I cannot find an online review, but here is the blurb from from publisher's website.

"Persia and Torah provides the first thorough evaluation in English of the theory that the Persian Empire authorized and influenced the formation of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Jewish and Christian bibles. The contributors to this volume address the role of written texts in ancient politics, religion, and law; the political and social contexts behind the literary formation of the Torah; the social forces that motivated the acceptance of the first Bible; and the experiences of Judeans in the Persian period in comparison with other Persian subjects, especially Egyptians and Greeks. Along with the translated work of Peter Frei, the leading proponent of this theory about imperial influence on local law in the Persian period, the volume presents evaluations of the theory and its application to the Bible by six experts on the period and its literature: Joseph Blenkinsopp, Lisbeth S. Fried, Lester L. Grabbe, Gary N. Knoppers, Donald B. Redford, and Jean Louis Ska.

Contents: Introduction, James W. Watts; Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary, Peter Frei; Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?, Joseph Blenkinsopp; "You Shall Appoint Judges": Ezra's Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes, Lisbeth S. Fried; The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual Than Real?, Lester L. Grabbe; An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?, Gary N. Knoppers; The So-Called "Codificiation" of Egyptian Law under Darius I, Donald B. Redford; "Persian Imperial Authorization": Some Question Marks, Jean Louis Ska

Symposium Series
Code: 060717
240 pages, 2001
Paper: $39.95
ISBN: 1-58983-015-6"



http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications...589830156.html

Greg2003

I don't know that they really did exist. I do think that the story clues us into the fact that the mosaic law is being introduced to the palestinian inhabitants by persian agents (regardless of where in the persian empire these agents came from).
Of course the priests had some independance as governors, but the reading of the law was mandated by the persian emperor. The persians had an established practice, especially under Cyrus, of endorsing native religions and then using them as tools to get the people to support the persian empire. I think it's reasonable to conclude that strategy was pursued in Jerusalem the same as it was in Babylon.

This is the point of persia influencing the development of the jewish religion to deemphasis monarchy and emphasis instead loyalty to the Temple where everyone must pay tithes (taxes, a good bit of which went to the empire) The mosaic law gives the jewish people an ethnic identity that is vehemently anti-egyptian, pro-persian, and anti-monarchy. The mythology didn't come from persia but persia sure did rewrite the stories to fulfill these purposes.

Thanks for the reference I would be very interested to read this.

DrJim

Greg 2003,

I wonder about your characterizing the Mosaic legislation as 'pro-Persian'? I have trouble finding unambiguous legitimization in Torah for a foreign imperial rule over the 'promised land' and the 'chosen people'. I'm not sure the emperor would have thought much of texts granting the ancestors of a province divine control over everything from Egypt to the Euphrates and a charter to massacre loads of taxpayers, and to have no law but YHWH's law (which, in Torah, does not mention any Persian royal mediation).


I would fully agree that there is potentially considerable influence from Persian thought on the production of the HB a lot of rhetoric designed to keep the peace in Persian Judah for the elite. Yet I suspect there is a heck of a lot more too. I'm more inclinded to see at least some of the writers feeling a little 'betwixt and between' the growing sense of post-exilic Judean identity and Imperial obligations. Perhaps I am over-cautious about reducing it all to 'propaganda' (and I don't mean to imply that you do). I think we can find within the HB evidence of a complex discourses which spanned centuries that involved multiple re-interpretation of the past, multiple sets of laws, contemporary political debates, questions of religious and ethnic identity, and speculation about the meaning of life. Ezra and Nehemiah are one set of those voices, but I'm not completely convinced that their ideologies should be read into the production of a lot of the rest. If we could know how much control the Persians themselves had over Judean textual production, I may withdraw my reservations, but some of the writers in the Watts collection I mentioned earlier cast some doubt on the idea that they excercised direct censorship. One of the dangers of delegated rule, especially if you give your delegates the opportunity to develop their own 'national' identity is that the plan just might work too well!

Celsus

Hi all,

Having just finished Blenkinsopp's The Pentateuch, I found his conclusion very intriguing. We know of the Persian strategy of delegation and decentralised control through local authorities, which resulted in of course, a much greater liberty for the people in their empire. In fact the Persian rulers went out of their way to restore the local cults of their subjects. A codification of laws under the pax Persica (but left to be decided locally) was underway in many of their lands, including, we might conclude, Jerusalem. Hence, he argues that the Pentateuch was a constitutional document, and its multiple sources explained by the fact that there was a compromise in varying traditions of the Jewish elites returning from Babylon.

Blenkinsopp writes:

• The traditional view identifying Ezra's law with the legal content of the Pentateuch has been held by many scholars in the modern period, including Wellhausen. But several indications in Ezra-Nehemiah suggest that the final stage of formation came at a somewhat later time. . . . Our best estimate of the situation, therefore, is that the Pentateuchal law in its final form represents a compromise between different interest groups with their own legal traditions worked out in several stages during the two centuries of Persian rule. As such, it was authorized by the imperial authorities as the law and constitution of the Jewish ethos, and its implementation was backed by the same authorities. That it was combined with a narrative of founding events resulted from the Jewish community's sense of identity and continuity with the past, though the omission of the conquest narrative [the Deuteronomic history --Joel] was no doubt also dictated by a prudent regard for the political reality of subordination to a foreign power.
  
  Blenkinsopp, J. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Old Testament, Anchor Doubleday, 1992, pp.240-241

I presume an identical case is put forward by Blenkinsopp in DrJim's reference. Pushing my luck, would it be possible for DrJim to share with us a summary of the alternative views?

Joel