Cyrus - A New Conservative Approach

Cyrus—a New Conservative Approach Andrew Perry This study presents a reading contrary to the critical and conservative consensus on Isaiah 40-48, which makes these chapters concern the end of the Babylonian Exile and beyond. The main difference between the critical and conservative approaches centres on the question of authorship and editorial history. Critical scholars (the majority) like to work with either multiple authors or editors or with a single prophet called Second Isaiah; conservative scholars ascribe these chapters to the figure the Bible knows as Isaiah of Jerusalem. Our argument combats both conservative and critical approaches from different angles. Our case agrees with critical scholars in arguing that it is not plausible to ascribe the authorship of Isaiah 40-48 to Isaiah of Jerusalem and retain an exilic and post-exilic reading.1 The main argument that critical scholars use to establish the exilic reading is the mention of Cyrus. Accordingly, our goal is to present an eighth century2 reading in which the mention of a Cyrus is a short term prognostication relevant to the eighth century; in this way we can retain the authorship of Isaiah of Jerusalem. The challenge in this goal is whether a plausible catalyst can be provided for Isaiah of Jerusalem to have uttered a prophecy about an individual called Cyrus. While it would be possible just to say that Isaiah prophesied about Cyrus a hundred and fifty years ahead of his time because he was divinely inspired, we do not avail ourselves of this approach. Critical scholarship dominates study of Isaiah and moves at a fast pace. The most recent full-scale academic Anglo-Saxon conservative commentary (Motyer, 1993) presents an exilic and post-exilic reading of Isaiah 40-66, but critical scholarship has moved beyond this kind of reading in recent years. The older critical consensus3 of a “Babylonian” individual dubbed “Second Isaiah” or “Deutero-Isaiah” is no longer the opponent of the conservative scholar wishing to uphold the single authorship of Isaiah of Jerusalem. There is a need for a more thorough-going eighth century reading if a conservative position is to be upheld. Ironically, this new kind of conservative reading can be supported by arguments that critical scholars have used to breakdown the older critical consensus of the Babylonian Second Isaiah. It is our contention that the anti-Babylonian rhetoric of Isaiah 40-48 has its catalyst in the diplomatic visit of the Babylonian envoys in 7004 and its fulfilment in Assyrian campaigns against Babylonia in 700 and 689. The theme of the “return of the exiles” has its application in the return of deportees, refugees, prisoners and sold-on captives taken in the Assyrian campaign of 701. Similarly, the promise of the restoration of the land is the remedy for the devastation wrought by the Assyrian invasion of 701. Accordingly, we eschew the option of eliminating the mention of Cyrus from the text (J. W. Thirtle, 1907;5 C. C. Torrey, 1928;6 W. A. Wordsworth, 1939;7 J. D. Smart, 19638), and instead develop the proposal that Isaiah uses the presence of a Cyrus visiting Hezekiah’s court, a prince of Anshan and/or Parsumash, as representative of a dynasty whose future king will one day say of Jerusalem “She will be built” and of the temple “She will be founded” rather than Merodach-Baladan. That Isaiah might For example, this difficulty is acknowledged by the conservative evangelical scholar J. B. Payne, “Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah 40-66” WTJ 29 (1966-1967): 179-190 (179); WTJ 30 (1968): 5058; 185-203, who cites further scholars who have recognised the issue. 2 We use the phrase “eighth century” rather than “eighth/seventh” as shorthand for our reading which is centred on the years after 701 and until the end of Hezekiah’s reign (686/685). We refer to years in the singular, 701, 700 and 699 according to the western Julian calendar; when we refer to the Judahite calendar we refer to years as 701-700 and 700-699 to show that the Judahite year started in the autumn of a Julian year. 3 C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (London: SCM Press, 1969), 8, said in 1969 that the hypothesis “no longer needs proof”, but he represents the end of an era in scholarship. 4 This date is contested with 702-3 more common; it is beyond our scope in this essay to defend this date. 5 J. W. Thirtle, Old Testament Problems (London: Henry Frowde, 1907). 6 C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928). 7 W. A. Wordsworth, En-Roeh: The Prophecies of Isaiah the Seer (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1939). 8 J. D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). 1 present a foreign envoy in such a way depends on three factors: first, Hezekiah and Merodach-Baladan are in dialogue about Jerusalem and the temple; secondly, that Jerusalem needed re-building and there was talk about re-founding the temple; and thirdly, that there is a Cyrus in the party of the Babylonian envoys visiting Jerusalem. The mention of a Cyrus is the principal driver for the exilic reading of Isaiah 40-55, and the supposed change to a Palestinian setting in Isaiah 56-66 is the main reason the later chapters are read against a postexilic backdrop. We offer a reading of the two Cyrus Oracles (Isa 44:24-28; 45:1-7) that allows us to read the whole of Isaiah 40-66 against an eighth century setting. Re-building the Temple? The two oracles that mention Cyrus could presuppose a situation in which other fuller oracles have been delivered about Cyrus, but these have not been recorded. The address to Cyrus in Isa 45:1-7 is placed at this point in Isaiah to explain the laconic remark of Isa 44:28—but upon reading/hearing this remark the such a person would be still left with questions about Cyrus. Even with the additional information of Isa 45:1-7, the reader/hearer in the eighth century would be still left with questions about the mysterious identity of Cyrus unless there is (or was) a Cyrus on the scene. We will accept this requirement as our working hypothesis, taking a Cyrus to be on the scene, either actually in the party of the Babylonian envoys, or back home in Anshan/Parsumash. In terms of the historico-critical method, this is the most likely hypothesis. In the narrative of Isaiah 3639, there is a visit of Babylonian envoys happening at the time. Babylon is known from the Assyrian Annals to be allied to southern Elamite tribes, and ‘Cyrus’ is a common name of that region. If the Babylonian envoys had such a prince among their number, it makes sense as prophetic counter-rhetoric to assert that Cyrus would say to Jerusalem, ‘Thou shalt be built’. There is no presumption within the historico-critical method insisting that such pronouncements are true; the best hypothesis on these terms is that it proved false. The point though is that it is a relevant expression of doubt in the long term prospects of Merodach-Baladan (he had none). The Cyrus oracles can be related to the Jerusalem and Judah of Isaiah’s day by mirror-reading them for the issues at stake. Hence, in their diplomatic negotiations with Hezekiah and his court, the Babylonian envoys presented Merodach-Baladan as the legitimate king of Babylon, and they offered trade contracts that would see them supply materials for the re-building of Jerusalem. Isaiah’s riposte is to say that a Cyrus will fulfil this role and not Merodach-Baladan. Was re-building then an issue in 700 and is there a Cyrus known to the envoys? A prophecy that Cyrus would say of the temple ‘She will be founded’ requires a catalyst. The question arises as to why the prophecy concerns founding rather than the building of a temple?9 The Jerusalem temple was in need of repair in 701 and there was clearly talk of refurbishment and decoration of the temple. The treatment of the temple under Ahaz had been despicable. He had closed the doors and put out the lamps (2 Chron 29:3, 7); he had replaced the altar, cut-up the laver and altered the fabric of the building (2 Kgs 16:12, 17-18). A portion of the temple had been divided off for the Assyrian king. Hezekiah had cleansed the temple at the beginning of his reign (2 Chron 29:18-19), but no other restoration work is noted in the record. Against the background of talk about a new temple, or repair to the temple, refurbishment, or renewing its foundations, the Babylonian envoys could have offered material support and boasted of the great temples in Babylon. The rhetoric of Isaiah’s response is that it would be Cyrus who would say of any new temple that it would be founded; it would not be Merodach-Baladan. The word ‘founding’ is right and An exilic origin of the announcement would supply an obvious answer—the temple was destroyed in 587—hence, scholars argue that Second Isaiah is the prophet behind Isaiah 40-48. Conservative commentators who ascribe Isaiah 40-66 to Isaiah of Jerusalem are forced to say that Isaiah presupposes the destruction of the temple in the announcement of v. 28. However, Isaiah does not describe anywhere the future destruction of the temple in 587—a glaring omission for conservatives. 9 supported by archaeology insofar as Hezekiah extended the temple mount after 701, and perhaps at this point the intention was to build a new temple on top an extended mount rather than renew the existing temple (this would be suggested by the rhetorical question, ‘Where is the house that you build for me’, Isa 66:1).10 Naming Cyrus A. Motyer observes that ‘many see the detailed prediction of the personal name of Cyrus in 44:28 as a problem’.11 It is a dividing line between critical and conservative commentators with each side showing equal conviction. Critical scholars insist that the prophet must have known of Cyrus’ early career and therefore be a contemporary; conservatives cite the ‘precedent’ of Josiah (1 Kgs 13:2) and affirm their belief in divine inspiration as the explanation for Isaiah naming Cyrus. The problem here is that both types of commentator read the Cyrus material with the hindsight of history and infuse the oracle with an historical intention centred on the events of 539. The prior question is whether the geo-political situation of Isaiah’s day was such that it was possible for him to nominate a future liberator called Cyrus. We have no oracle introducing Cyrus by name; Isa 44:28 and 45:1 presuppose such introductory knowledge. Scholars have argued that Isa 41:2, 25 is such an introduction, but these texts are historically indeterminate and merely compound the problem. We have no record like, ‘A king will arise whose name will be Cyrus’. Our data is irreducibly just a sample of the prophetic rhetoric of the day. Could the Isaiah of the eighth century make such a prediction of a named individual? The first point to establish is whether Isaiah would have prophesied about Anshan/Parsumash, a southern province of the Elamite Empire, and the origin of Cyrus. If Isaiah prophesied the rise of a conqueror who would confront Assyria, it is not implausible that would choose Elam, neither is it unlikely that he would choose the southern part of the Elamite Empire and the junior partner of that alliance. Elam was the traditional ally of Babylon against Assyria, and Sennacherib’s campaigns refer to ‘Parsuas’ and ‘Anzan’ as confederate with Elam and Babylon during his eighth campaign.12 The southern areas of Mesopotamia were always more trouble to the Assyrian kings. It is not implausible that Isaiah would prophesy a role for Anshan/Parsumash in the plan of God for his then dispersed people. The name ‘Cyrus’ is typically Elamite/Persian (Kūrush) and it may be a given name, a throne name, or an attributed name for a ruler in Anshan/Parsumash at least as early as 646. A text, from the thirtieth year (646) of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, has Kūrush paying tribute through his first-born son, Arukku.13 The identification of this Kūrush is disputed, with some scholars willing to equate him with Cyrus I, while others regard 646 as too early for Cyrus I to be the ruler of Anshan/Parsumash, who is given dates like 620-590 or 640-600.14 If 646 is indeed too early for Cyrus I, our suggestion would be that ‘Kūrush’ is a given name or an attributed name for Teispes/Shishpish15 (675-640), the father of Cyrus I, and ‘Arukku’ a given name for Cyrus I or an older son that did not succeed in the dynasty. Persian scholars have not made this proposal, partly because they have adopted consensus views about Second Isaiah and his L. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2007), 189-194. A. Motyer, Isaiah (Tyndale Commentaries; Leicester: Inter-varsity Press, 1999), 284. 12 D. Luckenbill, ed., The Annals of Sennacherib, (repr. Wipf & Stock, 2005; Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1924), 88. 13 E. M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 71, notes the text, which describes the Assyrian conquest of Elam as a ‘flood’. A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2010), 53, includes the text which is an Akkadian clay prism called the ‘Nassouhi Prism’ originating from Babylon: ‘(When) Kūrush, king of Parsumash, heard of the mighty victory, which I had inflicted on Elam with the help of Ashur, Bel, Nabu and the great gods, my lords, (and that) I had overwhelmed the whole of Elam like a flood, he sent Arukku, his eldest son, together with his tribute, as hostage to Nineveh, my lordly city, and implored my lordship’. 14 On this see M. Brosius, The Persians (London: Routledge, 2006), 7; Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 71; Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 54. 15 It is significant that Cyrus II lists the dynasty from Teispes in the Cyrus Cylinder which—ANET, 316. 10 11 prophetic mention of Cyrus II.16 If we instead take Isa 44:28/45:1 to be from Isaiah of Jerusalem, this changes the possibilities for the history in question. If we factor in the evidence of Isaiah, then we have two texts that give witness to a Cyrus of Anshan/Parsumash, one from 700 and one from 646. The chronology of the early Achaemenids is uncertain and texts are scarce before Cyrus II,17 and so an equation between Teispes/Shishpish and the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism cannot be proven or disproven, especially if the texts from Isaiah are discounted. If we factor in Isaiah’s evidence—that there was a historical reason to nominate a Cyrus—then an equation between Teispes and Kūrush becomes a distinct possibility. If Teispes began his reign in 675, then he might be a young prince in 700 depending on what age he assumed the throne (which is unknown). Some scholars do not equate the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism with Cyrus I and hypothesize that Parsumash was a distinct region to Anshan. Their reconstruction is that the Nassouhi Prism is about the ruler of this region.18 Since ‘Cyrus’ is a common enough name in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Elamite texts of the era, it is not implausible to hypothesize another king that bore the name but one which ruled a different region. Certainly, both Anshan and Parsumash (Parsua) are lands noted separately but together in Sennacherib’s annals in the description of his eighth campaign (against Elam in 691, Annals. 43). This line of reconstruction opens up the possibility that it was Parsumash rather than Anshan that had sent a prince in the Babylonian party to Jerusalem, whose name was ‘Cyrus’. We can say that Anshan and Parsumash were closely associated regions; whether they were distinct regions is disputed. Their regional identities may have waxed and waned during the eighth and seventh centuries. We have then two possibilities for the identity of Cyrus: one centred on Parsumash and one centred on Anshan. If choose Anshan and Teispes/Shishpish, we might ask: why would the crown prince have a third name in the inscriptional texts? Is this arbitrary? The practice of taking throne names upon accession was widespread in the Ancient Near East. Although it might be thought that ‘Cyrus I’ and ‘Cyrus II’ indicates that ‘Cyrus’ is a throne name, this cannot be proved. If we equate Teispes/Shishpish with the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism, Kūrush would be one of his given names or an attributed name. A. Kuhrt notes that ‘Kūrush’ is now thought to be an Elamite name,19 meaning, ‘He who bestows care’ or ‘He gives fortune’. The Nassouhi Prism is anti-Elamite insofar as it celebrates victory over the Elamites; the selection of ‘Kūrush’ as Teispes’ given name in the prism could be part of this anti-Elamite propaganda, and in this case it would be an intentional irony. This hypothesis offers a reason for the use of ‘Cyrus’ in addition to the Greek name of Teispes (from Herodotus) and the Elamite name of Shishpish (from the Cyrus Cylinder) for this ruler of Anshan. We have noted that scholars are unwilling to equate Cyrus I with the Kūrush of the Nassouhi Prism, although the chronology will allow the equation. If instead, we make the equation with Teispes/Shishpish, the name of his eldest son, ‘Arukku’ could be the given name of Cyrus I, and this would then be evidence for ‘Cyrus’ being a throne name, so adopted in deference to his father Teispes/Shishpish; the throne name was then continued in the grandson, Cyrus II. After Cyrus II (559530), the name ‘Cyrus’ continued to be used, but not as a throne name. Artaxerxes I originally bore the personal name of ‘Cyrus’,20 before taking the throne name of ‘Artaxerxes’,21 and Artaxerxes’ grandson was named ‘Cyrus’, although he only rose to the position of Satrap.22 Artaxerxes II had the private name of ‘Arsaces’; Artaxerxes III was originally names ‘Ochus’; and Artaxerxes IV was personally called ‘Bessus’. See Kuhrt’s treatment in The Persian Empire, 84. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 47-48. 18 An example of this treatment would be D. T. Potts, ‘Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan’ in Birth of the Persian Empire (eds., V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart; London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 7-28. 19 Kuhrt, The Persian Empire, 48. Compare the older view in Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 72. 20 R. Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names” Annali Dell’Instituto Orientali Di Napoli 42 (1982): 83-95, discusses the dynastic names of the later Achaemenids. 21 Josephus, Ant. 11.6.1 22 J. Oates, Babylon (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 139. 16 17 A comparable pattern of throne-naming is seen in the Darius series of Achaemenid kings: the personal name of Darius I has been lost, but Darius II was originally called ‘Ochus’ and Darius III was called ‘Artasat’.23 The inscriptional evidence therefore suggests that ‘Cyrus’ could have been a throne name from the early Achaemenid royal house, which changed when Darius I succeeded the son of Cyrus II. The Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus, offers the reason for the later choice of the Artaxerxes’ throne name, ‘Since Artaxerxes had been a good king and had been quite peaceful and fortunate, they [the Persians] renamed all kings ruling after him and ordered them to bear his name’.24 R. Schmitt offers the analysis that ‘Artaxerxes’ carried the meaning ‘whose reign (or rule) is from (or: through) Rta, the Truth’ and ‘Darius’ carries the meaning ‘holding firm (or: retaining) the good’, and that these ‘names unmistakeably express a religious-political program or motto’.25 Darius I was the first king after Cyrus II and Schmitt postulates that the Achaemenid throne name was changed to ‘Darius’ to express the motto of ‘holding the empire together’. In 700, the Achaemenid dynasty was just beginning with Achaemenes, and the region of Anshan/Parsumash would have been perceived as an active part of the Elamite sphere of influence, traditional enemies of Assyria and traditional allies to Babylon. The house would have been perceived in terms of the minor nobility of Elam, the junior governing partner in the Elamite alliance. 26 It is not implausible to suppose that Isaiah would have nominated a future liberator from Assyrian dominance 27 identifying a prince of this region. In this case, Isa 44:28/45:1 is primary evidence for ‘Cyrus’ being a given name of Teispes/Shishpish. Schmitt’s proposal that Achaemenid throne names are chosen for ideological reasons also raises the possibility that Isaiah’s prophecy then underpins the choice of ‘Cyrus’ as a throne-name for the early Achaemenids.28 Our conclusion therefore is that an Elamite-focused prophecy nominating an Anshan/Parsumash prince is a plausible prognostication by Isaiah in 700. It works because the prince is representative of the Achaemenid dynasty and an eventual succession of kings named ‘Cyrus’.29 Conclusion The Cyrus oracle units are political prognostication and counter-rhetoric based on geo-political and ethnographic knowledge of Mesopotamia and in particular the Elamite Empire. The difficulty felt by liberal critics in ascribing to Isaiah a long-range prediction of a named individual is misplaced because it is only a long-range prediction with the hindsight of history. However, it is clearly anachronistic to allow later history to set the benchmark for measuring whether a speech plausibly originates with a given speaker. The probability of whether a speech originates with the associated speaker should be determined by what is known about the speaker and his situation in life. Contrary to conservative commentators, the Cyrus material in Isaiah 40-48 is not included to counterbalance the threat of eventual captivity in Babylon. Isaiah has not thought himself into the position of the Babylonian exiles. The critical response to this interpretative strategy is correct: in this debate, it is more likely to be the case that there was a Second-Isaiah speaking to his own community, rather than that The evidence is tabulated in Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names”, 92. Diodorus of Sicily, (LCL; trans. C. H. Oldfather; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), XV, 93, 1. 25 Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names”, 93. 26 Brosius, The Persians, 6. 27 In 700, it was more likely that Assyria would renew their campaign against Judah and that they would deport the royal house to Babylon. Isaiah’s prediction does not state who would deport the royal house, and in 700 the throne of Babylon was Assyrian. 28 This presumes dissemination of Isaiah’s prophecies amongst scattered communities of Israelites in Elam, which is supported by Josephus, Ant. 11. 5. Isaianic material may have come to the attention of Teispes who may have instituted the throne name for his son, whom we know as Cyrus I. 29 The same argument works for the alternative hypothesis: if we suppose ‘Cyrus’ was a throne name for the Parsumash royal family, the presence of such a prince in the Babylonian party would make him representative of a future Cyrus from Parsumash. How Anshan and Parsumash became a single region and how the royal families intermarried is a subject of speculation. 23 24 Isaiah of Jerusalem shifted his whole ministry to the 540s and ignored the needs of Jerusalem after 701. Thus, the Cyrus oracles are only attributable to Isaiah of Jerusalem on the basis they are part of the dialogue between Yahweh and the Babylonian envoys. On this reading, Cyrus is the royal prince of Anshan (Teispes) or a prince of Parsumash; he is on the scene and representative of the dynasty of the Achaemenids. Cyrus is not presented as a liberator of the exiles; the note of liberation is subordinate 30 to the main emphasis upon the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Our proposal therefore is that a clear catalyst31 for the Cyrus oracle units exists in the aftermath of the Assyrian Crisis in the state of Jerusalem and the temple and the failure of the Servant of the Lord to resist the overtures of the Babylonian envoys. Hezekiah’s reception of these visitors, his parade of wealth, and the undoubted diplomatic negotiations, produced a caustic reaction on the part of Isaiah. Hezekiah failed to maintain his confidence in the recent deliverance of Judah by Yahweh because his heart was lifted up and Yahweh had left him to test what was in his heart. On this K. Kitchen makes the point that because there is a known Cyrus of Parsua from 646, fifty years after Isaiah, “there is nothing untoward in an Isaiah being moved to proclaim that a ‘Cyrus’ (identity of his kingdom not stated) would reach power and free Hebrew captives in Babylon (whether of MerodachBaladan’s time or indefinitely later). His prophecy was to be fulfilled, as we know now, but we in hindsight know more now than he personally ever did—simply because that hindsight has been gifted to us by our living in a much later day.”32 The historical veracity of the Cyrus prophecy vis-à-vis Isaiah of Jerusalem has nothing to do with our hindsight; it only has to do with whether it was plausible for Isaiah to have uttered it in the Jerusalem of his day. It is carried by the figure of a ‘shepherd’. This catalyst matches the way Cyrus is introduced (Isa 44:28); Cyrus is not introduced as a liberator, and this casts doubt on the Babylonian reading. 32 K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 380. 30 31