Cyrus' Role in Power Transition: Impact on Religious Practices, Study notes of World Religions

Download Cyrus' Role in Power Transition: Impact on Religious Practices and more Study notes World Religions in PDF only on Docsity! REL 101 Lecture 16 1 Hello again. Welcome to another session of Literature and World of the Hebrew Bible. Again, my name is John Strong. After 16 sessions I hope you’re remembering that my name is John Strong. I know that some students forget their professors’ names. At any rate, this is session 16. We’re going to look at the priestly literature this time. If you remember and think back and kind of get a broad view of the class so far, we’ve looked at a number of different background issues but we’ve also looked at the Deuteronomistic literature as a bloc of literature and we’ve dated it, roughly speaking, to the time of Josiah and the defeat of the nation, and how that literature addressed that kind of a situation. Now we’re turning to the priestly literature. It’s another bloc of literature. It is promoted by, written by, and carries the traditions of another circle, political/religious circle, in ancient Israel. We’re going to be looking at some of their traditions, their beliefs, and describing those. When we talk about the priestly literature, here are the books that we’re really focusing in on and looking at. We’re looking at the other four books of the Torah or of the law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. What it appears that the priests did or the priestly circles did is that Deuteronomy already was authoritative for them. They couldn’t toss it out. Not that they necessarily wanted to. But it was already in place as authoritative literature, already had the prestige of being something of canon or for the nation. So that was a given piece of literature. And the same would be true — they had at least in some form the Deuteronomistic history and that was also tradition that they were handed and that was a part of the corpus that they would’ve accepted as authoritative and had to deal with, had to work with. But then they were collecting other pieces of literature, other traditions that were also out there, that were also probably seen as authoritative by the people, and they collected all of this together. They pulled together Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and REL 101 Lecture 16 2 Numbers, and then Deuteronomy was somewhat tacked on to the end there. And what scholars believe is that the priests formed not so much their own narrative, but that the priests put together an outline and gathered the material together in an outline, and that this outline and organization with some editorial comments, so to speak, plugged in there at strategic places, built the priests’ idea and definition of Israel. And so when we talk about the priestly literature, the priestly school, we’re gonna be talking about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. That doesn’t mean they didn’t recognize Deuteronomy. It doesn’t mean that they did not read Deuteronomy. It does not mean that they did not feel that Deuteronomy was authoritative. It just means that they were pulling together other material and they shaped it in such a way that it carried their message and they organized it in such a way that it carried their message. And again, think in terms of the priests putting together an outline — not so much writing a book, but acting as editors, organizing a book so that that books carries their message. So we talk about the law, those four books — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. They also have their own history. They have a view of history that sits alongside the Deuteronomistic history and that is found in First and Second Chronicles. And also the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the English texts, those books are all split up. But the priests viewed that as a bloc of material and found them together. Ezekiel is a prophetic book that shared much of the priestly schools of thought. We talked about Jeremiah as having generally a Deuteronomistic perspective. Ezekiel has largely a priestly perspective. Later on in the course we’ll try and codify, clarify, simplify the priests’ message and separate it out a little bit from the Deuteronomistic message. A lot of overlap. They certainly came from Israel. They certainly agreed with each other in many ways, disagreed in other ways. Again, as we’ve been talking throughout the course, there were political and REL 101 Lecture 16 5 given to anybody else. Sin, the king of the gods, chose me and made my name famous in the world by adding many long days and years of full mental capacity to the normal span of life and thus kept me alive from” Such-and-such. And it goes on. It is a passage talking about how Nabonibus revered Sin, that family’s god, and how Sin rewarded that family and that maternal line. Notice it also said that Nabonibus moved gods and moved the nation’s worship from Babylon to Haran. And so there’s a shift there and that certainly would’ve upset the priesthood and other powerful, courtly figures and parties within Babylon. And so you can start to see that there’s internal — internal unrest in Babylon at that time. Well, along comes Cyrus. Let’s see what some of the ancient literature says about Cyrus. Cyrus claims that Nabonibus interrupted in a fiendish way the regular offerings he established within the sacred cities. The worship of Marduk, the king of the gods, he changed into abomination. Daily he used to do evil against Marduk’s city. He tormented [and this would be Babylon] — he tormented Babylon’s inhabitants with Corvais work without relief. He ruined them all. Notice he’s making a lot of the same complaints that were made against Solomon when the people — the ten tribes of the north were talking to Rehoboam. This would’ve been First Kings, chapter 12 or so. Upon their complaints the lord of the gods became terribly angry and he departed from the region, the other gods living among them, and left their mansions wrought that he had brought them into Babylon. But Marduk who does care for and on account of the fact that the sanctuaries of all their settlements were in ruins and the inhabitants of Sumer and Acad had become like living dead. So here’s how Cyrus — his propaganda was describing the situation. That the REL 101 Lecture 16 6 inhabitants of Babylon were like the living dead. Turn back his countenance and his anger and abated, and he had mercy upon them [Marduk did]. He scanned and looked throughout all the country, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead them, willing to lead Marduk in the annual procession. Who would be an obedient king for Marduk? That’s what the text is asking. And then he pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anchan, and declared him to become the ruler of all the world. He made the goutee country and all the Mondahors bow down in submission to his [that is Cyrus’s] feet. And Cyrus did always endeavor to treat according to justice the black-headed [in other words, the Babylonians] who Marduk has made him conquer. Marduk the great lord, protector of his people and worshipers, beheld with pleasure Cyrus’s good deeds and his upright mind, and therefore ordered him to march against his city, Babylon. It’s by Marduk’s order that Cyrus took Babylon. And the text goes on and in some text it talks about how it was essentially a bloodless coup. And that Cyrus marched into the city and the people were grateful for Cyrus to come in and restore worship of Marduk. How much of this is propaganda and certainly we saw in these texts a couple of different sides of the story. But it does seem that you see Nabonibus claiming allegiance to Sin, once god and a few other gods that are collected there, as opposed to Marduk. You see Cyrus upholding the worship of Marduk. And so certainly there was some sort of internal struggle there and Cyrus does win the day — we know that. And Cyrus — it seemed to have been his practice when he conquered a country to restore worship of that country’s gods. Now, let’s take a look at what Ezra I says because Ezra I talks about — has a decree from Cyrus that seems to be quoted in this text. REL 101 Lecture 16 7 Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord [this is Yahweh], the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are of his people — may their God be with them! — are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the god of Israel — he is the God who is in Jerusalem, and let all survivors, in whatever place they reside, be assisted by the people of their place with silver and gold, with goods and with animals, besides freewill offerings for the house of God in Jerusalem. And so by a decree of Cyrus, Persian king, the people are allowed to go back to Jerusalem and Judah, and rebuild the temple to Yahweh. And so it seems to have been a policy of Cyrus that he’s willing to — as long as he has political and military control over these areas, he’s happy for them to worship the gods of their lands. And so if Babylon reveres Marduk, Cyrus is a friend of Marduk. And Marduk has selected Cyrus to bring order and to revere Marduk in Babylon. Yahweh, in Jerusalem and for the Hebrew people, it was Yahweh who selected Cyrus to lead them back into the land, build Yahweh a temple, so that service — religious service could be offered unto Yahweh. And so this was Cyrus’s policy and it seems to have been characteristic of Cyrus’s foreign policy, you might say. Or I guess if it’s conquered territory, domestic policy. It was how he ruled these foreign countries. Some people talk about it as being enlightened and a new phase of enlightened rule in the ancient Near East. I’m not sure. I think that sometimes we have a rather small and selected set of texts that we’re viewing and a selected sample of data that we’re viewing, so I’m not sure that Cyrus is all that much different than the Assyrians. But, at any rate, this is what we have for data. Jerusalem then at this time, in 539 — and that’s a crucial date to remember — REL 101 Lecture 16 10 that. There is a famous inscription called the Behistun inscription and the Behistun inscription is written in Iran, if I recall the correct location. It’s currently modern-day Iran. It is written on the face of a huge rock face and it declares to this whole valley — there’s a huge rock face and it has a picture of Darius holding captive over these other rulers and then there’s a valley that spreads out so that all who pass in front of this stone, all who pass along this valley, this caravan route, are going to hear about the legitimacy of Darius’s reign. I’m going to read parts of the Behistun inscription to you so you kind of get a flavor for how it’s written. But what I want you to be aware of, the inscription is going to talk about how he defeated Gaumata, a king named Gaumata. This king, Gaumata, Darius says was illegitimate and should not have been king of Persia. His line — and we’re not gonna read the genealogy that comes at the first of this inscription — but that genealogy establishes Darius’s legitimacy as a legitimate descendant of the legitimate line. So he’s saying “I’m legitimate. Gaumata is not. And also I’ve been selected by Ahura mazda, the high god that he worshiped, to be king and to replace this illegitimate ruler.” Ahura mazda, in wanting to set everything right and bring justice back to the world, selected Darius to defeat this evil imposter, Gaumata. So here’s how the Behistun — parts of the Behistun inscription reads: “King Darius says the following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus named Cambesus, one of our dynasty, was king here before me.” Well, that Cambesus had a brother, Smertas by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambesus. Now, afterwards Cambesus slew this Smertas. So Cambesus wasn’t the best guy in the world. Killed his own brother. But Smertas — remember him because he comes back into play a little bit later. Well, when Cambesus slew Smertas, it was known unto the people that Smertas was slain and thereupon Cambesus — he went down to Egypt. And when Cambesus REL 101 Lecture 16 11 had departed into Egypt, the people became hostile and multiplied in the land, and even in Persia and Medea and other places. So Cambesus kills his brother. He goes down to Egypt. There’s unrest and rumors are spreading, but exactly what went on wasn’t known. Well, afterwards there was a certain man, Gaumata by name, who raised a rebellion. And on the 14th day of the month did he rebel. He lied to the people saying, “I am Smertas, the son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambesus.” So Cambesus didn’t admit or say “I killed my brother, Smertas,” so Gaumata could say “I’m Smertas and I’m the one who is the legitimate ruler here.” And then all the people were in revolt and from Cambesus they went over unto him, and from Cambesus they went to Gaumata, both Persian and Medium, and other provinces. And he seized the kingdom, Gaumata did, on the 9th day of the month and afterwards Cambesus died of natural causes. So you’ve got an illegitimate ruler in there who’s seized control of the throne. That’s the gist of what Darius is trying to say. Then King Darius says, “The kingdom of which Gaumata dispossessed Cambesus had always belonged to our dynasty, Darius’s dynasty.” Well, after that Gaumata had dispossessed Cambesus and other provinces, and he did according to his will — he became king. Well, then it goes on and talks about how Darius kills Gaumata and restores the kingdom to the rightful line. And King Darius says, “There was no man, either a Persia or Mead [these two major provinces] or of our own dynasty who took the kingdom from Gaumata. The people feared Gaumata exceedingly for he slew many. He was a tyrant who had known the real Smertas. And for this reason did he slay them that they may not know that I am not Smertas, the son of Cyrus. There was none who dared to act against Gaumata until I came [meaning until Darius rescued the day]. And then I prayed to Ahura Mazda, the chief god. Ahura Mazda brought me help and on the tenth day of the month I, with a few men, slew that Gaumata and the REL 101 Lecture 16 12 chiefmen who were his followers at the stronghold called [he gives the name] in the district of — I slewed him. I dispossessed him of the kingdom. By the grace of Ahura Mazda, I became king. Ahura Mazda granted me the kingdom.” And so the legitimacy of Darius’s kingdom is given to him by Ahura Mazda. King Darius says, “The kingdom that had been wrested from our line [from Darius’s line — remember, he’s saying that he’s legitimate] I brought back and I reestablished it on its foundation. The temples which Gaumata had destroyed, I restored to the people. And the pasture lands and the herds and the dwelling places and the houses which Gaumata had taken away. I settled the people in their place, the people of Persia and Media and the other provinces. I restored that which had been taken away as it was in the days of old.” In other words, he went back — he’s recalling an ancient time and said he’s put everything back in place the way it’s supposed to be. This did I by the grace of Ahura Mazda. I labored until I had established our dynasty in its place as in the days of old. I labored by the grace of Ahura Mazda so that Gaumata did not possess our house.” And so Darius — this inscription was written by Darius in a prominent place, probably right in front of a major caravan route, in order to establish the legitimacy of his own kingdom. Very same sort of thing that we’ve seen in some of the biblical text and it’s the sort of thing that was necessary politically in those days. It also, though, reflects the fact that Darius had to answer these questions reflects that there were questions. And from about 522 to 520, there were rebellions throughout the land. Darius, though, squelched these and gained control of the situation. Then the temple in Jerusalem was finally rebuilt in 520 to 516 B.C.E. It’s an important date. Note that in 539 Cyrus gives a decree allowing for the rebuilding of the temple, but it’s not until about 20 years later that the temple actually gets rebuilt. That’s REL 101 Lecture 16 15 Now, what that means for this literature that the events recorded in the Demotic Chronicles are fairly accurate. If the author is going to say this is all prophesied but the reader already knows the events, the author better get the events correct for his piece of literature to be persuasive. If the author wants to say these events mean such-and-such, the author better get the events right. The Demotic literature seems to get the events pretty right, pretty correct. Now, having said that, one of the events talked about in the Demotic Chronicles is that under Darius there was a command that went out that Egypt should codify its laws and the laws of its gods in order to organize that state so that the people there would live according to the laws of Egypt and the laws of that god, and that that is how Egypt should probably be run. Scholars then look at this piece of literature, the Demotic Chronicles, and they say this is another picture of the kind of policy that went on under Darius and during the Persian empire. That not only did they allow the people to build a temple and serve the god, but they also allowed the people to live according to the laws of that nation’s traditions and that nation’s religion and that nation’s history. And that they actually made a decree: collect your laws together. Put them together into a codified — in a codified way. Go and teach them and have an orderly society. And this was — and they felt this was a picture of the kind of policy that the Persian Empire put together. Well, with this context in mind, think about what Ezra did. The biblical texts say that Ezra was given the order by the Persians to take the law back to Jerusalem, teach them to the people. And it’s exactly what the Demotic Chronicles reflect. And the law that Ezra would be taking if he was a priest and a scribe living in Babylon, he would represent that old order, the traditions and the layers of society that were exiled in 587 and taken to Babylon. Those are the traditions and the circles of material that Ezra would represent. And the texts and the traditions and the stories and the laws and the REL 101 Lecture 16 16 beliefs that were authoritative for that circle, that’s what would get put together into the Torah, into the law, taken back to Jerusalem, read to the people, and say this is the law of our land. This is how we’re gonna order our land. And that’s how scholars understand this priestly literature and the context in which the priestly literature is put together and built. Now, when it came — one last person to be aware of and remember is Nehemiah. The date for Nehemiah that you want to be locked into is 445 B.C.E. and the event that Nehemiah — the activity that he went about was to restore the walls of Jerusalem and to rebuild the protection around Jerusalem. This was an important symbol for the priests and for the priestly literature and the priestly circles that treasured this literature because this symbolized perhaps a first step toward independence, toward once again becoming an autonomous nation. And so it was a picture of promise. So Nehemiah becomes an important figure in that he built the walls and those walls symbolized a promise. And that leads us then to the thesis statement that we’re going to be using for the priestly literature. We had a thesis statement for the Deuteronomistic literature. Note that the Deuteronomistic literature centered around an obedient king who would lead the nation in obedience and therefore into prosperity. The temple state in which the priests operated was a province under and within a larger world context, a world of nations. Israel was at this time drawn into international politics and they were one player among many. The people who were in control, the priests who had come back — they had come from Babylon. They had come from another nation. They were answerable to another political power. And so there was perception, that vision, that context out there. Their thesis, therefore, is that Israel is Yahweh’s testimony to the world. Notice their framework. It’s the whole world. That Yahweh is the one who defeats and REL 101 Lecture 16 17 controls the powers of chaos. Yahweh is most powerful and Israel testifies to that power. Israel will be that testimony if the proper priesthood maintains the Jerusalem temple cult. Things are very focused around Jerusalem and the proper temple worship, and that is something that shows up throughout the priestly literature. But what we’re gonna focus on is what kind — what is it that Israel is testifying to? Yahweh’s power. And note that Israel’s purpose is to be that testimony. When we look at Genesis and some of the books in the Torah, that’s going to become a very important line of thought. It’s gonna be a red thread that runs through the Torah as the priests organized it. Well, thank you for your attention today. In the next lesson we will look at some background material, ancient Near Eastern literature, and some of the stories about creation and flood that were prominent in the ancient Near East. Thank you for your attention.