Medes and Persians Author(s): Charles C. Torrey Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.

66, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1946), pp. 1-15 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595494 . Accessed: 23/02/2012 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

"MEDES AND PERSIANS"

CHARLES TORREY C.
YALBUNIVE RSITY

it The aim of the present investigationis to set in pronouncing confused;for example,the hisexactly forth the Jewish conceptionof Medo-Persian rela- tory given in Ezra 2: I-8: 36 is throughout wrote it (except for the usual tions as it is embodied the scripturesof the Old as the Chronicler in Testament,includingthe Apocrypha. This is not slight errorsof transcription),without omission, a superfluous task. Thereare certainfundamental addition,or transposition. It is a continuoussecideas of this importantperiod of Jewish history, tion of his elaborate work; a fact of the greatest firmlyheld withoutvariationin all the 0. T. writ- importance,of which no moderncommentator or ings concerned, whichno commentator historian historianhas been aware. It is disappointingto or appearsto have seen clearly.1 It is customaryin realize that in order to understandthe Jewish dealing with these documentsto operatewith the account of the Persian period it is necessaryto ascertained chronology of the Persian period, forget the Gentilehistorians;but this, exactly,is undertakingto force it upon the Jewish writers. what is required. The result is seen in the confusedand conflicting The LIebrews, the ancientsgenerally,were like theories, none justified by the existing Hebrew- not interestedin the historyof otherpeoplesthan Aramaicmaterial,which appearin the textbooks their own. "The study of non-Biblicalhistory [in the 3Iaccabean period] was never a part of of the presentday. There is a faithfully preservedand consistent Jewish education" (Bevan, The Book of Daniel, (but romancing) scheme of Persian history and p. 149). When they wrote of other nations, it chronology,presentedby the Chronicler's stories was invariablywith either pareneticor apologetic of Ezra and Nehemiah,by the narrativesin the aim. Intensely conscious of the superiorityof book of Daniel, by the tale of the Three GFuards-their own religion, but held in subjection and men in First Esdras,by the bookof Estherand its oppressed,they aimed to show in detail how Second Targum,by the book of Tobit, by certain foreignpotentates, after another, one had acknowlpassages in the Prophets, and by the rabbinical edgedthe Godof Israel or shownespecialfavorto literature, all these being in substantial agree- his servants. ment. What has appeared be confusionin the to The Chronicler,writing in the Greek period, chronology Ezra-Nehemiah in realitya simple undertookto show this of all the Persian kings of is and straightforward progression throughout, when of whom he had knowledge(excepting of course a single scribal error has been corrected. This DariousIII), namelyCyrus,ArtasersesI, Darius narrativecannot be understood, however,without II (these three in Ezra 6 :14), and Artaserses II recognitionof the theory of Medo-Persian aRairs (in Ezra 7 f. and Nehemiah) His list of these . which was current in Jerusalemfrom (at least) kings was preciselythe same as that of the author the third centuryB. a. onward,and which differed of Dan. 11: 2, and indeed, of all the Jewish very widely from the true courseof events. authors of that era (see below). Accordingto The attemptto read actual Persianhistoryinto the uniform and well attested Jewish tradition, the fanciful Jewish scheme results in the chaos Darius I Hystaspis (as " Dariusthe Mede") prewhich is to be seen in every moderncommentary ceded Cyrus;2 and Ahasuerus (Xerxes) was a and critical essay. The Jewish schemeitself is in ZIede,not a Persian at all; as will presentlybe perfect order where critics have been unanimous shown. Commentatorshave expressed surprise that 1 Since our knowledge of Jewish history in the Persian period is obtained almost entirely from the 0. T. sources Artaxerxes shouldbe includedin Ezra 6: 14 as a I
and since the word " fundamental " here used is not an exaggeration, this weak point in recent historical criticism deserves to be given serious attention. 2As the present writer has insisted in numerous publications, from the year 1896 onward.

TORREY: {

Medesand Persians)

benefactorof the returning exiles. The Chron;- available,however,if there had been the wish to clers representation clear and consistent,how- make use of them; Palestine was not a remote is ever, when it is understood. This king7he would provnce Eduard Meyer,in his attempt to interpretthe say, the Artasersesof Ezra 4: T-24,had permitted post-exilichistoryof Israeln reached lmportant the the Jews to build their temple; until khe lying (EntsfehungdGes JudenthqlrBs, 18967p. reportof their enemies,the Samaritans, that they conclusio:n es were building the muGwII cityacausedhim to 74), vCdass uber das ganze erste Jahrhundert of {he give an orderunder coverof which these enemies der nachexilischenGeschichtebis auf Esra und proceededby force to stop the building of the NehemiaherabkeinerleiNachrichtenund keinerlei Tradition gab mit Ausnahmedessen, was in tetnple. A well told story of a successfultrick.3 Esra 4-6 und in den In like manner,the authorof Dan. 1-6 narrates den erhaltenenUrkunderL how both Nebuchadnezzar 31?34) and Darius gleichzeitigenProphetenstand.' I demonstrated (4: and espethe Mede (6: 27 f.) acknowledgedthe God of in my Ezra Studies (1910), chap. ATI, Israel. It remaineafor a later writerto show,in clally in pages 150-15T,that these ;;lTrkunden, the book of Esthern how this was true also of the letters and royal edicts glorifying the Jews and third and last of the c;Median kings known to their religionare, each and allSworthlesscompositions put forth in furtherance the Chroniclervs of Jewish legendn Ahasuerus. In each of these late additionsto the canonical single purpose. As for the Hebrew prophecies, to of scriptures, what we are given is characteristic their contribution our knowledge the Persian 3ewishreligiousteaching,testifyingto the strength periodis negligible,as will appear. Bevan,The Book of Danieln 149, irl speaking p. of the Hebrew-faith and also to the vividnessand the fertility of the Hebrewimagination In the of the Persian kings and the chronologyof the narrativesQf this nature, canon;ealor apocryphal, period,says: ' It may be doubtedwhether,in the age, it was a matter of small consequence what t7ae Maccabean one Jew in 10,000 was acquainted Gentilesbelievedor were in the habit o saying. with the names and order of these kings.an The What was important was the religionSand the doubt is certairtlyjustified The century and a heritagea the childrenof Israel The 3ews of half of Greekrule would have eSacedmost recolof the Greek period were not interested in Medo- lection of the Persians and popular interest in never was strongr MorePersian history for its own sake, hut only as a them, whlch presumably overnno Jew of the Maccabean time7 as far as sourceof materialfor Israelite theology. paid attentionto Actual Jewish traditionsof the earlier part of the existing evidencecan showS the Persian period were non-esistent, as appears the names and true order of the kings betwee:n aild to be shown by the official chronologycompiled Nebuclladrezzar Nerses. The reasonfor this with care and presented in the Seder vOlam assertionwill soon appear. Rabbah (second century . o.) . This as is well The Chronielersnarrativeof Jewish religious known, assigns ;' 52 years'4 (;nstead of 206) to afairs from (:yrus to Darius III Codomannus the entire period of Medo-Persianrule of the comprisingthe "books" of E2ra and Nehemiah. Jews; and from the rebuildingof the temple to makesthe outwardimpression a workbasedon of the conquestof Alexander) only 34 years (instead recordsof Persian history, but it is not such in of 87; not 184)as Mooreand othershaveit). This reality. There were no such Jevish records. In means,Mooreretnarks, that the learnedconapilers the Chronicler's time it was easy to obta;n frotn ; had no sufficientsources.' The sources were Greeksourcesinformationin regard to the Persian kings, and he took what he needed The The attempt to take the narratixTe of the hands Greekdoctrines out concerning earZiest of the the part of the Chronicler and treat it as hi,story has not been periodhe could not use for they disagreedin imfortunate. The colnmentators on the hook of Esra have with the native Jewish theory found the chapter confusing declaring verse 24 to be portantparticulars out of place ! Eer the verse can have got into its of the Medo-Persian ruleSas will be seen. Here, present position no one has been able to explain. he stood firmly on the ground occupiedby his See, e. g., G. CF. Moore, J?daism I pp. 6 1a9. T"he the nuinber 52 however, is a false reading, as wiil presently contetnporaries, author of Dan. 1-6 and the be shown The trne number required by the document lnterpolatorof the pagan story in First Esdras, itself, is 56. giving out the doctrine which was plainly and
3 4

OTEY-

"

Mede nd Persian "

repeatedlyset forth at a later day by the author of Dan. T-12. It will be shown in the following pages, with abundantevidence,that the successionof MedoPersian rulers acceptedwithout questionand exhibited in the writings of all the authors of the Old Testamentliterature, canonicalor uncanonical, who deal with the subject is the following: DariusI (classedas a Mede), Cyrus,C'Ahasuerus' (Cyasares) Artaserses I, Darius II, Artaserses II, Darius III. No other kings are ever named, nor is there space for a-nyother.

Persian period, the Greek rule, the Hasmonean and dynastya the house of :ETerod. Tuvoof these divisions stand out separatelyas defined by holy scripture. The exile (whatever the term may mean, see helow) was a period of seventy years, according to Jeremiah 25: tlf., 29 :10, Daniel 9: 2, and Zechariah1 :12, 7: S. Again, a certaindefiniteperiodin Persianhistory to yean, according passagesin coveredtht-rty-four the bookof Nehemiah(13: 6 and 12: 22). These two assurednumbers,70 and 34, obtainedfrom fromthe total of 490 scripture,must be subtracted to beforewe can undertake definethe threeperiods which are obtainedfrom Jewish tradition. Each Jewi3h Chronology The TrGlditioncll numbers,however,presentsits difficulas The Chronieler, is well known,cuts the early of the two ties, which must be examined. the Persianhistoryvery short. Zerubbabel, leader The problemof the ;'seventy years of exile't of the Babylonianexiles, makes his debut in the has neverceasedto maketrouble Is the " seventy" first year of Cyrus,when the Persian Sheshbazzar by is appointedgovernorof Judea.5 Thereafter,in a roundnumber,or is it obtained computation? Is ';exilen' used literally, or metaphorically? It the reign of Darius II Nothus (the ouly possible if to Darius here), Zerubbabelis himself governor. is important ascertain, possible,in what scripture and in what connectionthe phrasewas first According to our well establishedreckoning he would then have been about 135 years old. But employed. In the two passagesin the book of of the Jews had a chronology their own, also well Zechariah ';these 70 years has commonlybeen as established,and accordingto this the picture of interpreted meaningthe time duringwhichthe Jews were deprivedof their temple in Jerusalem. perfectly. suits the circumstances Zerubbabel Mentionwas made, above,of the Seder 'Olam This explanationof the phrase suits our chronRabbah, and the startling disagreementof its ology, but is not favoredby any other considerachronologywith that of the GEentiles.It is not tion. It is not suggested in either of the two it to be put aside as unimportant, is very impor- passagesnamed, each giving the impressionof a are tant indeed. Its computations basedthrough- term familiar in speaking of the desolation of Ou on canonlca Hebrewscriptureand authorita- Jerusalemand Judea (1: tT-21; T: 7, 14). In the ; tive Jewish tradition. It needs to be considered book of Jeremiah,the period of seventy years is ' for its expressly defined as the time of ( desolation at length in the present investigationn to the end of the BabyPersian period evidently agrees extending treatmentof the gives in his history. lonian empire (25 11f., 29:10). Thus also with that whichthe Chronicler The Seder vOlamchronologyat this point is in Daniel ( 9 2 ), where Jeremiah is quoted by based on the (; seventy weeks" (490 years) of name. Especiallyimportantis the fact that this who in 2 Chr. Dan. 9: 24, taken as the interval betweenthe de- is also the view of the Chronicler, 36: 21 combinesthe predictionof Jeremiahwith struction of the first temple by Nebuchadrezzar and that of the second temple by Titus. Five Lev. 26: 34 f. (Leviticus, indeed, prescribesno successivedivisions are recognized:the esile, the definite interval, but merely a multiple of the sacrednumber,seven). LXX ' ) translation of the Chroniclers B The old ( ss In the passageJer. 25.1l, on which probably history, in First Esdras 2: 11, gives the true sense all the others depend, the "seventya' is best re'IovAanas.'; Prince of Judah" is a false TS tpOaTaTB roundnumber;compare gardedas a conventional rendering. Compare Ezra 5: 14-16, where Perss authority and initiative are necessarilisrappealed to. Is. 23 *1S, 1T,;; Tyre will be forgottenfor seventy The Persian governor did all this, it was official and by yearsn; and see Grayns note, The Book of Ish, kingly order, not a mere Jewish undertaking. Eere as there is evidencethat in the Jewish everywhere else the Chronicler shows himself to be a p. 395. :13ut skillful narrator. traditionthe numberwas soon made to serve in a
.

TORREY: (

]Iedes and Persians"

formal chronology, applyingexactly to the period from the destruction the templeto the accession of of Cyrus,this achievedby means of the reign of Darius the Mede,as will be shown. The difficultywith the "thirty-four years" of the Seder COlam chiefly in the fact that it lies seems to be expresslydefinedas the years of the durationof the Persian period. It has often been explainedas the numberleft over after subtracting from 490 the seventyyearsof the exile and the numbersrepresenting threelater periodsabove the named;6 but this turns the processin the wrong direction. The number34 is in fact obtainedfronz the Hebrewtext, and it is also plainly declaredto be only a part of the Persianperiod. When 70 and 34 are taken from 490, the remainder is 386, the sum covering the years of the three periods belonging to Jewish t r a d i t i o n . 'rO the Hasmonean dynasty is assigned the duration of 103 years. Here the Jews had their own record,and the reckoning may well have been from 140 B. (:. (I Macc.14: 27) to 37 B. (:. ( EIerod) To the IIerodiandynasty,down . to the year 70 A. D., iS given the same length of time, 103 years (instead of 107) . There may havebeenthe wish to gain a roundnumberfor the Greek period, 180 being also a multiple of the sacrednumber 12. The entire period from the destruction by Nebuchadrezzar the devastation wrought by to Titus and his armies thus appearsto be covered, but in realitythereis confusionin the chronology. It is not clear what is meant by the " seventy years" (certainly not alwaysthe durationof the exile, nor the interval betweenthe destructionof the temple and its rebuilding nor how the I), reigns of Cyrus,Ahasuerus,and Artaxerxes,and the six years of Darius Nothus are to be brought under cover. An item which will presently be mentionedsuggeststhat a calculationof the exilic
6 Thus it is treated, for example, in the Jewtsh Encyclopedia, articles " Chronology,"IV, 71, and " Seder 'Olam Rabbah,"XI, 148, and in Alexander Marx's Seder 'Olam, Berlin, 1903, p. x; and by all these authorities it is considered to be a conventional substitute for the true chronology. See Jew. Enc. IV, 71: " making the Persian domination last 34 instead of 204 years"; XI, 148: "only 34 years for the Persian domination." This, I venture to think and shall endeavor to show, is a mistake.

periodwhich was familiarin the time of the Chronicler beenimperfectly in memory. had kept It is firstnecessary explain period 34 to the of years, expressly declared boththe S. 'O.,chapter in XXX, andin Aboda Zara,9a, to be that part of the Persian rule which followed the completion of the temple. The modeof treatment this briefsection in illustrates printhe cipleslaid downin the Jew. Enc., XI, 147 f., as characterizing procedure the followed the S. 'O., in the purpose beingto cut the patternclose: "to assignto eachof a seriesof eventsthe shortest possible duration time,where of necessary order in to secureagreement with the Biblicaltext; and to adopt lesserof twopossible the numbers." 'rhe templewas finishedin the sixth year of Darius(Ezra6: 15). Thereupon followed immediatelythe reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra T:1), II whichcontinued 32 years (Neh. 13:6) and for was followed the reign of DariusIII (menby tioned in Neh. 12: 22), in whosesecorLd year (allowing briefest the interval) Alexander the and G#reeks arrivedand seizedhis kingdom. Hence the period 34 years, assured of an component presenting no difficulty;it is in the periodjust preceding that the troublecomes. it " The sum of the yearsof the kingsof Media and Persia [i. e., from Cyrus onward]is 52 years." This oft-quoted statement the S. 'O., of chapter XXX, is plainly wrong, it is effectively for contradicted one of the preceding in paragraphs, in chapterXXIX. Therewe read that Cyrus reigned yearsandpartof a thirdyear (Dan. two 10: 1), andthattheyears Ahasuerus' were of reign 14 (thenumber obtained thebook Esther); from of whence followsthat the intervalof time from it the first yearof Cyrusto the completion the of templeis twenty-two years(2 + 14 + 6).7 In the immediately following context regnal the yearsof Cyrusand Ahasuerus, + and 14 re2 spectively, employed another are in computation,
7 Here, the especially interesting fact is the omission of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4: 7-24), no account bein taken of his reign. This is not accidental, but the result of a theory. Ahasuerus is named only in the single verse 4: 6, after which he was believed to appear under the name Artaxerxes, as is made plain ( it was held ) by the Greek text of Esther. Contemporary evidence of the theory is to be seen also in 1 Esd. 2: 16, where the two verses, Ezra 4: 6, 7, are made into one verse under the name Artaserses.

" fifty andtwo hundred (correctedby arbitrary !

TORRE1Z: "

lAledes PersiansQ' and

namely, the reckoning of the ever-troublesome putation here which was familiar to the Jewish " seventyyears." Taking Jer. 29: 10 as the text scholarsin the middle of the third centuryB. a., (where the seventy years are all included in the but had been lost to sight by the time when the Babylonianrulet), the S.'O. counts 52 years of S. 'O. was compiled. This matterwill receivefurexile( !) 16 years of Cyrusand Ahasuerus, and 2 ther mention. of Darius (when the building of the temple It is plain that the calculationsin this portion began):,making 70 in all, which are now inter- of the S. 'O. cannotbe of use for the actualhistory preted accordingto Zech.1:12. of Israel under Persian rule They were not We are now in a position to rectify the state- intendedto be. As was remarked above,this was ment in chapter SXX (quoted above) that the a subject in which, for its own sake, no interest sum of the yearsof the kings of Mediaand Persia was felt. Chronology, however,was a dif3 erent is fifty-twoyears. The true number accordingto matter. The Most High, it was held, had prothe S. 'O. itself is 7ifty-six (2 + 14+ 6 + 34). vided through his prophets a number of exact The numeralin the (corrupt) Eebrew text reads dates, as well as a great many definite terms of years,with the means of combiningthem all in a guess to fifty-two); which makes the conjecture single series. The evident purpose of this, the naturalthat the numeral18! (56) was misreadas learnedmen agreed,was to establishanZ Israelite 1A>! (250); indeed this must be the explanation chronology, be used for all time by the chosen to of the false reading. people,and by no others. Therewas providedfor In connection with the " 52 yearsof exile" (see them a scheme of their history based on sacred above), it is to be noted that the reckoningof the scripture and on the divinely chosen numbers book of Jeremiah,assigning seventy years to the seven and twelve. It was a propertywhich had sojourn in Baby]onia,is not the view which pre- been desiredand held to be importantever since vailed in the later time. Whetheror not there the Jews! in their intense national consciousness, may have survivedan actual Jewish tradition of undertookto "separate themselvesfrom all forthe lapse of time betweenthe catastrophe the eigners" (Neh. 13: 30), as in the Chronicler's of year 586 and the death of Belshazzar(the exact booksof Ezra and Nehemiah. Even at the present duration, 48 years was of course known at the day the Jews maintain their own chronology, ttme to a multitude of the Jewish people), the which bears no relation to the chrorLology the of men of the third centuryB. C. must have felt well Gentiles. assuredthat " seventyyears" was much too long It is also to be borne in mind that the conclua term for the Babylonianexile (see Ezra 3: 12). sions bookedin the Seder 'Olam represented the Near the end of chapter X2tVI1I of the Seder offoialJewish tradition. RabbiJose ben Halaphta 'Olam, in an interpretation Daniel's "weeks" did not originatethese computations of and adJust(Dan. 9: 24-27) we read: " Seven weeks,they are ments, but " preserved the generally accepted thosewhtchthey spent in the extle 4ntil they went opinions" (Jew. Enc., XI, p. 149), doing his best up (to Jerusalem)." to put in orderwhat had beenhandeddown. This There is good reasonto believe (as will appear is genuine tradition, and it goes far back! It is later) that this very significantnumberof years, interestingto Snd in the olderhalf of the bookof 7 z 7, which happensto agreewith the time elaps- Daniel (c. 245 B. a.) 8 and in the work of the ing betweenthe destructionof the temple and the Chroniclerin Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 250 B. a.) secondyear of Cyrus ( !), was made use of in a the most strikingfeaturesof this tradition.namely, computation the " 70 years" similarto the one the following. of mentionedabove,though this time it is only the 1. Darius Hystaspisis made to precedeCyrus, Babylonianexile that is considered. In this conas "Darius the Mede." In the S. 'O. the years nection will be found significant the question of his reign have no place in the reckoning of the raised in the Seder 'Olam in the earlier part of chronology, they fall in the periodof the exile, for cllapter XXVIII: " What is meant by the stateand thus are includedin the " seventyyears." The ment (Dan. 6: 1) that Darius the Mede was whoseinterestwas in the Returnand ' about 62 years old ' when he receivedthe Baby- Chronicler, lonian kingdom?" Apparently,there is a com8 Which published first, Daniel I or the Chronicler?

TORREY:

"

lUedesand Persians"

the building of the temple,had no reasonto men- significantpart in Hebrew-Jewish history. Though tion Darius the Mede; but the way in which his far distant, yet at severaltimes and in different narrativeproceeds,Cyrusfollowedby Ahasuerus, ways they had influenced fortunesof Israel. the etc., shows that his theory was the same as that Therewas one time whenthe Medescameclearly of all the other Jewish writersof the last few cen- into the Israelite horizon,namely,when Nineveh turies B. a. Darius Hystaspis preceded Cyrus. fell ! The Hebrewshad long been underthe yoke Therewas a good reasonfor the theory,as will be of the Assyrians,and had prayedfor deliverance. seeny and it arose long before the Chronicler's The destructionof Nineveh was an event which time. concernedthem closely. The fact of chief im2. In numerous passages in the S. 'O. it is portancein their eyes was the suddenentranceof treated as unquestionable fact that the reign of a new and mighty actor, Cyaxaresthe Mede. It Cyrus was immediatelyfollowed by the reign of was he, with minor assistancefrom the Chaldean who Ahasuerus,and that the Darius who came there- Wabopolassar, struck the blow. The prayers after, i. e., Darius II Nothus, was the king in of the peoplewere answered. Jerusalemwas near whose reign the temple was built; see chapter enoughto the Tigris to get somegoodinformation his of XXVIII, near the end. Thus also the Chronicler regardingthe new conqueror, consolidation the Medianpower,his marvelousorganizationof plainly has it, the Dariusof Ezra,chapter5, being placed betweenArtaxerxesI and ArtaxerxesII, the army, his picturesquecavalry. The name, made its appearance Hebrewscript, in who are clearly and unmistakablydistinguished Cyaxares, and seemsto havecontinuedin use (as an Israelite from eachotherby the Hebreworthography. 3. Ahasuerus, cLll early Jewish literature propername) after its origin had been forgotten. in the which makes mention of him, is a Mede, not a As to this, and what appears to be the single of Persian at all. This is expressly stated in the occurrence the name in the HebrewBible, see below. S. 'O., chapterXXX, and is implied elsewherein The brilliant debut of the Medes made a the document. The Chroniclergives plain eviprofound impression in Western Asia and the denceof holdingthis view, as will be seen; indeed, lands. The Persians were called it is an essential feature of the long-accepted Mediterranean " theoryof Medo-Persian relations. In the bookof " Medes by the Greeksnot only in the time of Daniel, 9: 1, it is clearly implied; the name is a the Persian wars, but even in the age of DemosMedianname, and the secondAhasueruswas the thenes.9 We know that the impact in Palestine son of Darius the Mede, as is declared in the was mighty, and lasting in its effects; the latest second Targum to Esther, the grandsonbearing booksof the Old Testamentgive evidenceof the fact. The old picture of Assyria and Babylonia the name of the grandfather, usual. as was now torn up. The next thing for the Hebrews As for the name " Ahasuerus," will be shown it that in the standard Jewish tradition it was to expect was the destructionof another archBabylon. The all-conquerconfused with the Hebrew form of the name enemy and oppressor, ing Medewould inevitablyswallowup his weaker " Cyaxares." ally, the Neo-Babylonian. In the meantime,the Eebrewscouldturn to Egypt for help. The Medesas Deliverersof IsraZel Then came the armiesof Nebuchadrezzar, with the destruction Jerusalemand the chief strongof We shouldsupposeon generalgroundsthat the Hebrewpeoplecould have knownvery little about holds of Judea. Thosewho survivedthe devastation wroughtby the Medes. In the ancient history known to us the Chaldeanarmies must have prayed for the they play a mysteriousrole, leaving the most imor portantmattersin the domainof conjecture. We welfare of Cyaxares, of his successor. During the brief periodof Neo-Babylonian rule, the deciknow next to nothing about their antecedents, mated populationof Judea can only have longed their culture,whetherthey made use of the cuneiform script, and so on. It is very evident,indeed, for the conquestof Babylon by the Medes as a that the Hebrewsthought of them as a remote See Thomas D. Seymour, Ltte in, the Eomertc Age, people; yet they believedthat the Medesplayeda pages 38 and 62.
9

that Darius;'received the kingdom contains the

TORREY: "

Medesand Persians>5

just judgment from heaven. This thunderbolt Bliedian conqueror slew. The reportof these events from a clear sky falling on the Assyriancapital7 came to them in all probabilityfrom northern this blast which shoolithe world did the God of Arabia wherethe Babylonian king Nabonidus had Israel, who certainlyhad preparedit, have in it made the city Teima his new capital, with the no purposeof help for his own oppressed peopleS resultof a great influxof Jews from Palestineand There eould be only one answer, Yahweh had Alesopotamia.loThey knew that a Persian king raisedup a deliverer,to fulfill at last the promise named Cyruswas present at the fall of the eity7 given to Abraharll. but they gave him a small share of credit for the When the blow actually fell on Babylon, and conquest. In Chronieles-Ezra-Nehemiah Cyrusis the eity was seizedby the Persiansand Afedes,it never thought of as the conquerorof BabyloniaS was the latter who were lookedupon as the chief and in First Esdras,which is a part of the oldest actors. ;; Dariusthe WIede receivedthe kingdom.') form of the Chronieler'shistory known to us, This was the acceptedJewish doctrine,uniformlar CwTrusplainly subordinate I)arius. The same is to held in the C3ld Testament,the apoeryphal litera- piece of narrative (Dan. chapter 6) which tells ture, and the rabbinnicalwritings; see above in regard to the Seder (Olamh There was no room remarkable allusion,thricerepeatedto the law( I) for doubt,in view of what had taken plaee. First of the Medes and Persians. Here is implied a Assyria had been wiped out; now, the Chaldeans formal coalition7 and the notion plays a very imare struck down, and Babylonwill soon be Just a portant part in the accepted Jewish pieture of memory. the early Persiall period. The theory of this Out of the exultationborn of this new triumph coalitionwill be considered anothersection. in eamethe Hebrewpropheeies relatingto the Medes oraeles post eventurn, but most instructive. No Cyaxaresand Ahast4ert4s prophecieseould be more explieit. It was remarkedmore than once, in the preIs. 13: 17 fE.:" Behold,I will stir up the Medes ceding pages, that the Jewish sourees7 canonical againstthem, . . . and Babylon,the glory of king- and uneanonicalwithout exception, make Ahadoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans'pride shall suerus a Mede, and believe the name to be that be as when Glod overthrew Sodomand Gomorrah.2 of the Medianconqueror Nineveh. of Jer. 51: 11, 28: (; The Lord has stirred up the At the time of this conquest, 612 B. a., the spirit of the kings of the Medes,for his purpose IIebrewsof Palestine becameacquainted with the is against Babylon,to destroy it.... Prepare name of the conqueror, and wrote it in Hebrew against her the nations?the kings of the Medes, the governors thereof,and all the deputiesthereof7 characters. More than a hundred yeasrslater, and all the land of their dominion,. . . for the when it had been imperfectlypreservedand its purposesof the Lord against Babylondo stand, to preciseform was no longer known,the name was make the land of Babylon a desolation,without confusedwith that of a Persianking. The nameof the Medianking CSrasares, Buvahinhabitant.2) satara, would regularly receive in Hebrew tranThese passages are known to be late, hardly earlierthan the third centuryB. C. Interestingis scription the form SlttJ:RlsU, or more concisely SXltlWtS,. It is an interestingfact, which as far the way in whiehboth authorsborrow detailsfrom the great pieture painted in Isaiah 34; eompare as I am aware has never been noticed, that the Is. 13 *21 f. and Jer. 50: 39 with Is. 34: 13 f. t latter form, exactly, occurs in the HebrewBible On the bare merltionof Media in Is. 21: 2 see in a strange place. In 1 Chron.4- 6, in one of lists of propernames,our AIasoJ. B. L. ST (1938), pp. 124 f., where" Elam" and the Chronicler's retic text gives 1tUKsU as the name of one of ;' ZIedia are shown to be interpolations. " The Jews knew that the eonquestof Babylon the deseendantsof Judah. The reading is not was not the work of Medes alone. At the time quite correct, however; both the deSnite artiele when the eity was taken, in 538 B. C., the people and the adjectiveendingt have seemedstrangeto for of Jerusalemhad somegood information regard all the commentators, there is no other case in to the end of the Neo-Babylonian power and the 10See my Jewish Fouxdation of Estam (1933) pages death of Belshazzarwhom (as was believed) the lOff.

TORREY: "

Medesand Persians"

of the sort in the long catalogueof names; and prophet makes mention of " Darius the son of finally, the LXX showswhat was originallywrit- Ahasuerus,of the seed of the Medes, who was ten, for Cod.-B has As77p;Xv, Cod. A A(rS7ypa. madeking over the realm of the Chaldeans." No and The name ended in X, not in , and it certainly commentatorhas understoodthis, and blunders was the name Cyaxares.1lThe initial 18was taken have been conjectured in considerablevariety. but to be the definite article, and the name was pro- There is no blunder,however, only the standthe from nouncedAhasfhera, the Greekshows. It would ard Jewishdoctrine, sameand unchanged as not be difficultto pass overfromthis to Ahasweros, the Chroniclerto the Seder 'Olam Rabbah (see the transcriptionof the name Xerxes, when the above). Darius was the son of Cyasares (Ahalatter came to the knowledgeof the Jews, and to suerus), and the name of the grandfatherwas forget altogetherthe former name. This, at all borne, as usual, by the grandson.12 The king who appearsin the bookof Esther was events, is what occurred;" A h a s u e r u s " w a s Ahasuerus accepted by all the Jewish writers as "the son of Darius the Mede,"as we read in the the name of the great conqueror of secondTargumto Esther, as well as in the Seder 'Olam. Moreover, Xerres was indeed the son of Assyria. This is said in so many wordsin Tobit 14: IS. Darius Bystaspms, and this fact becomingknown Tobias spent his last days in Media, and before to Jewish writers probablyhad its influence in of his death, in Ecbatana,he was privilegedto see their construction the Medianroyal genealogy. the captureand destructionof Ninevehby " Aha- The monarchof the book of Esther reigned in suerus" (the best text, Cod.A, of the longer ver- Susa, the Mediancapital,wherehis father, Darius himself (Dan. 8: 2, 16; sion has simply v SxpaArwev'Ai(rvspos o B-CAfvs the Mede,had established rBs M718tas). "And he praised God for all that 9: 21; 1 Esdras4: 61).13 Ahasuerus(Xerxes) is he had done to the men of Nineveh and Assyria." not included in the list of Persian kings in the The second benefactorof Israel, the Mede of Talmud, Rosh ha-Shansh,3b. He is not one of Hebrew prophecyraised up to conquerBabylon, the four mentionedin Dan. Il: 2 (see below). In was naturally believed to have been the son of short, no Jewish writer treats him as a Persian, Cyaxares. He was thought of not only as the but he appearsonly as a Mede. Highly interesting evidence one indication military conquerorbut also as the first ruler of held this new the empire ("Medo-Persian") under whose gov- amongothers that the Chronicler ernment the Jews had lived for more than two is to be seen in Ezra 4: 6, the accountof a letter hundredyears. The reorganization the satra- which " the adversariesof Israel" had sent to of pies and provincesand the institution of other Xerxes (or rather, to CyaxaresII). They had importantregulationscivil and military were re- not dared to send an accusationto Cyrus, but corded in Persian history and tradition as the when he was succeededby Ahasuerus,they lost work of Darius (Hystaspis); hence, undoubtedly, no time in shootingtheir bolt. The verse reads: the name of the second "Mede" of Jewish folk- " In the reign of Ahasuerus,in the beginningof his reign, Bishlam, Mithredath,Tabeel, and the lore (see Dan. 6: 2 f. ) . rest of his companions wrotean accusation against The name " Darius," then, like " Ahasuerus," the inhabitantsof Judah and Jerusalem;and the was held to be a Median name. This is stated text of the letter was written in Aramaic and with the utmost clearnessin Dan. 9: I, wherethe translated." 14
11There is one other place in the Hebrew scriptures where the name appears to occur. In Esther 8, verses 10 and 14, there is an adjective describing the Median royal steeds. The phrase employed is the same in both cases, D?ntfnS,Sl :>X1##1, and the strange word has had no satisfactory explanation. There seems to be good reason to believe that it preserves an old tradition, and that these horses of the Median court received their proud name from that of the king who organized the Median cavalry; that is, it is the name of Cyaxares with the adjective ending appended. 12Interesting in this connection is the article by Buchanan Gray, " Children named after their Ancestors in the Aramaic Papyri from Elephantine and Assuan," in the Willhausen Ftestschrift (1914), pages 163-176. 13As has been shown elsewhere (see my Apocryphal Lsteratqxre, 11), the "Darius " of 1 Esdras, chaps. .3 and 4, is the Mede. The passages Dan. 6: 2, 1 Esd. 3: 2 and Esther 1: 1 were probably intended to make this plain. 14 It is evident in the Masoretic Hebrew that through the carelessness of a scribe the letter of vs. 6 was con

TORREY: {' Medesand Persians"

These authors were learned men, and their Translated? how, and why?'This is the only letter amongthe half-dozen the bookof Ezra agreementthroughoutshows clearlythat they reof in whichtranslation mentioned, no reason cordedthe learneddoctrineof their own time and is and for the exception beenapparent. has Meyer (zbid., their ownpeople. But, as in the caseof the Jewish p. 18), emending text,madethe letterPersian chronology(see above), there was recognizedno the and its translation Aramaic; in Ezra Studtes, obligationto take accountof the beliefs, records, 15 p. 200, it was suggested that the Aramaic letter and calculationsof other peoples. was rendered Eebrew. Neitherexplanation The best starting-pointis the prophecyof the into was plausible bothare mistaken. Now that four successiveempireswhich are variouslysymand the Jewish view of " Ahasuerus has cometo bolized in the second and seventh chapters of " in light, the reasonfor the translation the letter Daniel. The representation each of the two of is obvious, must be presented the SIed?arLchapters, perhaps two generationsapart, is the it tn language whatever that may havebeen. Here, same; the seventhchapter,with its four symbolic again,the always vividimagination the Chroni- beasts,gives moreof the neededdetails. The great of cler is exhibited.The Median emperor, morover, majorityof moderninterpreters in agreement are wasnot disposed trouble to himself about Jew3 as to the meaning of the symbols,and it is only the of PaTestine, so nothingmorewas heardof necessary refer to recentcriticalstudies. and to the Samaritan accusation.The "adversaries of A well known English scholar,H. 1H.Rowley, Judah and Benjamin made a futile move,in published 1935 a bookentitledDarius the Mede " in theireagerness. ctnd the Four World Empires, which gives an The Jew"71Theory of a Medo-Persqan Coalttion excellentaccountof the most importantinterpretations,and discussesanewthe Biblicaltexts. The lion of Daniel's vision is the Babylonianempire, the bear is the BIedianempire, the leopard the Persian, the terrible beast with the ten horns represents Greekpower. This is all fully docuthe mented, and very useful for reference. "Darius the Mede," Rowleyconcludes, a composite is figure, made up from confusedtraditions; here he fails to produce anything definite or convincing. In general,the presuppositions his workare quite of difEerent frornthose of the presentessay. The two authorsof Daniel (and indeed all the Jewish authors who deal with Persian af3Sairs) distinguishedWIedes from Persians, throughout. When Babylon was captured, the kingdom of Belshazzar was " divided" (Dan. 5: 28); each of the two conqueringnations had its share henceforth. Dariusthe Medereceivedthe kingdom,but the law accordingto which he ruled was (' the law of the Medesand Persians" (Dan. 6: 9, 13, 16), and the phrasenecessarily impliesa coalition, a politicalunion, as has alreadybeen said. There is a special picture of this coalition, in the form of anothersymbolicbeast, in the eighth chapterof Daniel. A ram with two horns is attackedby the he-goatwhich representsthe Greek armiesunderAlexander. The angel Gabriel interprets the vision to Daniel: "The ram that you saw, that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia." Yerse 3 had given more

The existence a real coalition, a formal of of administrative union,at the time of the conquest of Babylon thereafter, implied thephrase and is in "the law of the B1edes Persians"in Dan. and 6: 9, 13, 16, and likewise"the laws of the Persians and Medes (with significant " changeof order)in Esther1: 19. In actualhistory, there is no placefor the supposed union; on the contrary,it is nowwellknown the Median that power had beentakenoverby the Persiansbeforethe latter invadedand conquered Babylonia.The Jewishconception, however, as old as the sixth is centuryB. C., for it must have originated soon after the time when Babylonfell, and in the mannerset forth in the foregoingpages. The firstsuresignsof it areseenin the thirdcentury, in the olderhalf of Daniel (chapters I-6), the Chronicler's historyof the earlyPersianperiod, andthe interpolations FirstEsdras. in
fused with that of vs. T. This was seen by Eduard Meyer, Die Bntstehoung des Jouderwthums ( 1896 ), p. 17 and independently by the present writer in the same yearv The Composstion . . . of Etra-Nehemiah, p. 6 (see also Wzra Studies, pp. 185, 199 f. ) . In neither case however, was rs. 6 fully restored, as it is in the aboure translation. l$The second nnnx is now generally regarded as a gloss, similar to the one in Dan. 2: 4, designed to call attention to the beginning of an Aramaic section.

10

To RREY-.

StA "]Iede ndPer n S

a

99

particularinformation:" The ram had two horns, and they were high; but the one was higher than the other, and the higher came up Zast." This means, according to the popular Jewish belief, Ezraattested all the way from ChroniclesNehemiahto the Seder 'OlamRabbah,that after the conquest of Babylon, Medes and Persians startedeven,but that the rule soonpassedentirely into Persian hands. One might imagine it to have been a matter of polite agreement,at first, which of the two associatedpowersshouldfirst take the headshipof the coalition. " You may have it, Cyrus," Darius would say. "No, after you, Darius," would be the courteousreply. So Darius, being the older man, took the throne. But this was not the Israelite view. The divine plan, as was shown in the preceding pages, had appointedthe Medes, and announcedthem in prophecy,as the instrument of the punishmentto be visited on Babylon. The and Medianking was the conqueror, his rule wa3 empire. over {he whoZe It is quite clear that the Jewish idea of the workingof the coalition,while it lasted, was that the headshipalternated;indeed,that was the only natural supposition. First Darius, then Cyrus, then anotherMede,followedin turn by a Persian. This is exactlywhat we see in Daniel (both halves of the book) and the fourth chapterof Ezra. It is the only view of early Persian history which appears in any Jewish document down to the beginningof the present era. was on the throne iIS While Darius the WIede Susa (see above), Cyrus was his vicegerent in the charge of Babylonia. WVhen reign of Darius came to an end, Cyrusin turn reignedsupreme,ls presumably with a vicegerent in the eastern
proaTinces.

" illustratedin the apocryphal Story of the Threa originallypagan,but given a Jewish Guardsmen," hisin redactionand interpolated the Chronicler's tory. It is (now) an episode in the history of Dariusthe Mede,whosereign, here as alwayselsethat of Cyrus. Dariusis the overwhere,precedes lord, while Cyrus is in commandof Babylonia. The fact that Darius is reigning in an eastern capitalappearswhen the youth who is the hero of the episode leaves the court and journeys to Babylon (1 Esd. 4:61). One of his missions is to see that the purpose of Cyrus regardingthe vesselsof the temple of Jerusalem,a purposewell known to Darius,l7 is carried out. " Remember thy vow . . . to send awayall the vesselsthat were taken out of Jerusalem,which Cyrus set apart, to when he undertook()7p-taro?) destroyBabylon, and vowed to send them again thither" (vss. 43 f.). " He sent away also all the vessels from Babylon,that Cyrus had set apart; and all that Cyrus had given in commandment,the same chargedhe also to be done" (vs. ST). According document,Darius the overlord to the interpolated the ratifies,and thus in fact accomplishes, plan of
Cyrus.l8

Upon the death of Cyrus, the ZIedo-Persian empire was taken over, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Jewish tradition, firmly established by the third of the great Medianrulers, Cyaxares of II. This is the representation the Chronicler, in Ezra 4: I-6; and in the book of Esther this of grandsonof the conqueror Nineveh,the second "Ahasuerus') (see above) is introducedas reigning in Susa over " Persia and Media" (1: 3; notice the order!), and the laws of his realm are "the laws of the Persians and Medes" (1:19). In 1: 14 thereis mentionof the princesof " Persia
17Accordingto the document (4: 44, 57), both Darius and Cyrus, when they made their attack on Babylon uttered pious vows for the restoration of the Jewish worship, vows to rebuild their temple, and to send back to Jerusalem the vessels which had been carried away by the Chaldeans. 18 The idea would have appealed mightily to Jewish readers, and so it is not surprising that the interpolation remained in the Chroniclers history for some three hundred years. It might have continued much loner but for the work of a second editor, who identified the king of the narrative with the Darius of Ezra, chaps. 5f., transposed the section E^ra 4: 6-23t,and otherwise made of the story the ilnpossible mess of our First Esdras.

This conceptionof the modus vttendi is well

16It is of course made plain, from the first, that the empire was not " divided " in any ordinary way. Darius the Mede reigned over " the whole kingdom" with its hundred and twenty-seven provinces (Dan. 6: 2). First Esdras 3: 2, based on Daniel, says likewise that this Darius had under him all the princes of Media and Persia, in the hundred and twenty-seven provinces, fror India to Ethiopia. Cyrus reigns over ;' all the kingdoms of the earth " (E^ra 1: 2) . Eis successor, ;' Ahasuerus," rules over the princes of Persia and Media, in the 127 provinces, from India to Ethiopia (Esther 1: 1, 3). The following reign, that of Artaxerxes I, ends the coalition; see below.

TORREY * "

Medesand Persians" The Bear and the Leopard The descriptionof the Median bear, in Dan. T: 5, is in part obscurelyexpressed. It may be of doubtedwhetherany interpretation the details of the vision has ever satisfied a modern interpreter. The Srst puzzleis in the phrase," it was set up on one side"; what could this possibly mean? We have the impressionof a singularly helpless animal, in an awkwardposition. And again, what can be intended by the description, " threeribs werein its mouthbetweenits teeth" ? Why ribs? and how explain the limited number9: attitude,Bevan,The Bookof As to the supposed p. DGlnzel, 12l, explains: " Half crouching, cf. chap. 2: 39 wherethe Medianempireis described as ' lower' than the Babylonian." This makesthe it attitude of the bear even moremysterious, does not at all explainit. p. Commentary, 288, collectsfrom Montgomery, various sources examplesof animals depicted as intended however, half rising. If the apocalyptist, to suggest any activity on the beast's part, he himselfworse. The King couldnot have expressed James version indeed translates: "It raised up itself on one side," thus also the version of the Jewish PublicationSociety; but this is an impossible renderillg,for the Aramaicverb is passive.20 A more forlorn figure than this half-dormant and beast, "raised up on one side" by somebody, with its mouthfulof bones,could hardlybe found menagerie. in the apocalyptic 0f the principal ancient versions, The older Ta is T0V Greek (the LXX), c7rz fWS TawV the only one which certainlyinterprets" side2' as a part of the animal. Theodotionhas ets epos a reading which might possibly mean 'ev c(rTa07/ the that he understood phraseas it is interpreted is here (see below), but probably the same as the LXX. Jerome's Latin has in parte stetit; the the Syriac merely transcribes Aramaicword. pllrase If I am not mistaken,the troublesome with the verb in the passivevoice was designedto at emphasize the outset a fact alwayspresentand importantin the Jewish idea of the Medes. They
20 The word in our Masoretic text combines two alternative readings, as was shown in the JAOR, Vol. 43, p. 233. Some AISS. read nl:i?l ( as in vs. 4 ), others must have read ,8bbj#,l, notiee the }'1bM in the same verse.

and Media," and in verse 18, of the ladies of " Persia and Media." The orderof wordsin these phrases,passedover without adequateexplanationby the commentators, gives highly importantnotice. It carriesthe readerbackto Dan. 8: 3 and the two horns of the ram. In Daniel, including8: 20, the orderis only " Medes and Persians,"five times repeated;here in Esther, on the contrary,the orderis uniformly reversed,as has just been shown.l9 There is no accidentin this, it plainly is intendedillustration in of that whichis declared Daniel'svision. " EZow long," the interestedreaderwould ask, "dd the cocllitioncontinue?" Here is the answerto the union is importantquestion. The Medo-Persian but is now nearing its end. The still standing, Persianpowerhas the upperhand, and is readyto AhasuerusII take over the whole administration; emperors. is the last of the Median The reign of ArtaxerxesI ends the alternating series, Mede,Persian, Mede,Persian. He himself and all his successors(including those adopting " the " Median name Darius) are expresslydesignated as Persiansby the Chronicler. They reign not only in Babylon,but also in the Mediancapital cities which they have taken over. Thus when Darius II Nothus makes search for the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 6: 1 f.), he looks first in the archivesat Babylon,but ultimatelyfindsthe document in the royal residence (summer residence) at Ecbatana. ArtaxerxesII Mnemon,when the Chroniclerfirst introduces him, is in Babylon (Ezra T: 6-10). In Decemberof his twentieth year (Neh. I: 1) he is in the palace at Susa, the viii, city which is said by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 6, 22) to have been the favorite winter residence of the Persiankings. WhenNehemiahreturnsto the Persian court, after twelve years, the king is apparentlyin Babylon (Neh. 13:6). It seems clear, then, that accordingto the program of this Jewish fiction it was in the reign of ArtaxerxesI Longimanusthat " the law of the Medesand Persians" came to an end.
The phrase in 10: 2, in a later appendage to the book, falls out of account; see " The Older Book of Esther," SIarvard Theol. Review, V^ol.37 (1944), p. 29 and note 15.
19

TORREY: "

Medesand Persians" sense in the useless feature; worse than useless, for it weakensthe effect of the following command," arise and devour."And the numberthree remainsunexplained. The solution of the puzzle may be found in a well known use of this same wordin one of the cognatelanguages. In Arabic, the noun derivedfrom this root and corresponding in form exactly to the Aramaic word has regularlythe meaning "rib," but is also applied to some other things that have the rib's appearance; for example,"a stick strong and curved." The simplestform of the adjectivehas the meaning " crookedor curvedby nature." The elative form denotingbodilypeculiaritiesand deformities is used in describinga man " whose tooth is Ii7ce the rib," that is, he has a tusk.22 The Medianbearhad in its mouthnot only the usual complementof teeth, but also three great tusks,with whichto tear its prey beforedevouring it. In accordwith the otherlike symbols wings, horns,heads-occurring in these visions,the tusks representMediankings; namely,the three known to Jevish tradition: Cyaxares Oariusthe Mede I, (see Dan. 9: 1 ), and CyaxaresII (Xerxes). In view of the popularconceptionof the devastating Medianhordes and their three great leaders,the symbolism must be termedhighly suitable. The picture of the Persian leopard drawn in Dan. 7: 6 (see above) would have satisfied the Chronicler, whoseview of the history (Jewish history) was the same as that of his contemporary, and indeed,of the Jewish peopleof that day. There is no place in the book of Ezra for any otherreigns than those which it mentions. Commentatorspersist in lookingfor Darius Bystaspis in Chapter5; a fruitless quest, as we have seen not only because of Darius the Mede, but also because of the straightforward progress of the author'snarrative. At whatevertime the temple at Jerusalemmay have been built (and much remains to be said on that subject), the Chronicler's history is perfectly clear and unambiguousin declaringit to have been completed the time of in DariusII Nothus. The king estolledin Chapter5 is flanked on either side by an Artaxerxes,and the threereignsare represented in directsuccesas sion; see 4: 24 and T: I. Moreover, name of the the former Artaxerxesis written by the Chroni22 The definitions quoted here will be found in Lane's Arabic-Enplish Lewicon, pp. 1799 f.

were a remotenatton,a practicallyunkno people, never really comingwithin the horizonof the Jews. It was the morewonderful, significant, and that Yahweh had chosenthem as his instrument for humblingthe oppressors Israel. After the of bear, representingthe Median empire, had come up out of the abyss, where was he established (" set up ") by the divine power It was ofE" at 2 one side," nn m:.b. The Persianswere comparatively near; when " the kingdom was divided," they were picturedas receivingand continuingto occupy, while the coalition lasted, the western territory, while the Medes kept the far-eastern portion. This explanationof the difficultclause seems the only plausibleone. The beasthad " three ribs ( ?) in its mouth between its teeth." Three countries,or three cities, which had been conqueredby the Medes? But three is not a roundnumber. In such apocalyptic visions as these, the numbersare always significant, and invariablyapply to things or persons whosehistory directlyconcernsthe Jewish people. The four headsof the leopard(vs. 6) are the four Persiankings, Cyrus,Artaxerxes DariusNothus, I, and ArtaxerxesII.21 The ten horns, eventually eleven,of the fourth beast (vss. 7 f.) are the kings of the Greekempire,thus interpretedin verse 24. The four hornsof the he-goat (8: 8, 22) represent powers which had greatly influenced afEairsin Judah and Jerusalem. The three " ribs" in the bear's mouth must have some definite connectionwith Israelite history, and the symbolismmust have been fairly transparent. It is not surprisingthat some interpreters (see Rowley,ibid., page 154) shouldhave thoughtof the " three presidents,of whomDaniel was one" mentionedin 6: 3. But this will not do; there is no imaginablereason why the beast should have been pictured as chewing these administrative officers. The word IhYiP can hardly mean ribs here (Jerome'sLatin has tres ordines), though it may well mean curved bones. If it is explained as somethingbeing devoured,it is hard to see any
21 The list is the same as the one which is intended in Dan. 11: 2 (three kings after Cyrus). In both cases Darius III is not included in the list (though in Daniel he is mentioned), for according to the popular belief he was defeated by Alexander at the beginning of his reign, and had had nothing to do with the Jewish people. See further below.

TORREY: "

SIedesand Persians"

13

cler invariably (six times) with the letter stn; the name of the other he writes invariably(nine times) with the letter samekh. For him, then, the formeris ArtaxerxesI Longimanus, latter the is ArtaxerxesII Mnemon. No critical investigation which ignoresthese facts, while attemptingto use Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. a historical source, can as be termedscientific. How many years did Cyrusreign, accordingto the Jewish chronology? As was stated above,the Seder 'Olamassignsto him two years and part of a third year; that is, as ruler of the entire MedoPersian empire. It is now the question,how long he wasbelievedto rule in Babylonas the vicegerent of Darius the Mede. In the courseof the discllssion,above,in regard to the " seventy years of exile," the conflicting statements of the Seder 'Olam were more than once remarked upon; and the conjecture was made that a computationfamiliar to the Jewisb scholarsof the time of Daniel and the Chronicler had been lost to sight before the S. 'O. was comi piled. In chapter 28 of the last named source occursthe curiousstatement, quotedabove:" Seven weeks, they are thosewhichthey spent in the exile until they went up (to Jerusalem)." The sacrednumberof years, 7 x 7, does indeed coverthe time which elapsedfrom the destruction of the templeand the city, 586 s. c., to the capture of Babylon and the death of Belshazzarin 538; but the 10 X 7 years of Jeremiah,the Chronicler, and Daniel have still to be madeup. It is at least very noticeablethat the missing portion is thrice the sacrednumber,3 x ry.lIere appearssignificant the query raised in this same chapter,28, of the S. 'O.: " What is meant by the statement (Dan. 6: 1) that Darius the Mede was ' about 62 years old' when he receivedthe kingdom?" Either Daniel or the Chronicler,we may say with some confidence,could have answeredthis question.23The age of Darius at the time of the conquestwas calculatedin order to provide the necessary21 years. The great king was allowed a goodly length for his reign. When he died at the age of 83 years,Cyrustook the throne,and his
23 Bevan, The Book of Daniel, p. 107, says: " The statement that Darius was about 62 years old when he came to the throne, is probably based upon some chronological calculation by the author." This undoubtedly; and the nature of the calculation now seems evident.

accession supposed bring the periodof exile was to to its end.24 Accordingto this Jewish history, then, Cyrus reigned in all somewhatmore than twenty-three years. As was remarkedabove, the four heads (and wings) of the Persianleopardwerethe four kings, Cyrus,Artaxerxes DariusII, and Artaxerxes I, II. Darius III was not considered, becausehis reign had hardly begun when his kingdom was taken over by the Greeks,and also, becausehe was not concerned with the Jews. The famous puzzle in Dan. 11: 2, which has broughtforth many conjecturesbut no plausible explanation, now solvedwith certainty. In the is third year of Cyrus,Gabrielannounces Daniel to as follows: " And now I will show you the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persu; and the fourth shall be richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches,the Lord of All 25 will raise up the Grecian empire." Thereupon follows a description of Alexander,and a referenceto the partitionof his kingdom. What " three kings" are intended? No answer can be foundin the actualhistoryof Persia,but in the Jewish scheme the matter is plain. Xerxes is ruled out, for he was a Mede,and he " arose" not in Persia but in Media. The three Persians are exactly those in Ezra-Nehemiah:Artas. I, Darius II, Artax. II; and the fourth, to be conqueredby the Greekarmies under Alexander,is Darius III Codomannus. In the study of this Persian "history" it becomes increasinglyevident that the portions of text in the book of Ezra which are composedin the Aramaiclanguageare all, without exception, the work of the Chronicler, basedon nothing else than his own fertile imagination. In modern times, there has beenno lack of scholarswho have appraisedthese "Persian sources at their true " value. A few names may be mentioned here. TheodorNoldeke,in his Alftestamentliche Literatur ( 1868), pp. 62-64, had pronouncedthem
24 This explanation of the " seventy years " was given by the present writer in Ezra Studies, pp. 135 f., without knowledge of the support whieh is now given by the Seder 'Olam Rabbah. 26 Reading iblU 1t, an emendation offered by the present writer in 1904 (JAOS, Vol. 25, pp. 310 f.), adopted in Montgomery's Commentary and now suggested in Kittel's Biblia Ffebraica.

TORREY: {'

Medesand Persians"

products of the Greek period, and in his later ever, for complicatingthe matter by postulating years he declaredthem to have been composed by another author with the same aim and method. the Chronicler(Deutsche Ltteraturzeitung7 Sup- The favorite themes of the Chroniclerhimself, plement, Oct. 4, 1924, col. 1852) . Heinrich and his own literary traits, are pervasivein each " Graetz,Geschtchte Juden (1875), pp. 8T, 100, and all of the " official letters and decrees. The der conclusionplainly recommended the evidence by 128, declared them all to be forgeries. Julius Wellhausen,in a successionof publicationsfrom is that which is reachedin R. H. Pfeifer's IntroTestament ( 1941), page 824: 1895 onward,pronouncedthe Aramaic material ducttonto the OEd in worthless,yet even he could not bear to put it " The Persiandocuments Ezra are spurious.... aside entirely, since he must write somethtng They were writtenby the authorof the narratives aboutthe Jews in the Persianperiod. Manyother in which they are contained." leading authoritiesin 0. T. criticism,unwillingto dispense with these " historical sources in a " Concltbsion periodwhich otherwiseis almost a blank, even in It was said at the beginning that the Jewish the absenceof any corroborating material made literature of the last centuriesB. C. has but one great use of them as " not genuine, but in story of Medo-Persian afEairs, and its schemeof substancetrustworthy " ! the history was there termed " romancing."The Eduard Meyer'sEntstehqlngdes Jmbdenthums, descriptionapplies especiallyto the work of the published in 1896, was a godsend to the comChronicler, whose marked ability, displayed mentatorsand historians,for it made the Jewish throughout his history, in creating characters, restorationthe businessof the Persian kings, and acceptedas verbally authentic the documentsin sketehingscenes,and inventinglively details, has pp. the book of Ezra, though strangelyexceptingthe been partially set forth in Ezra Stqldies, 231251. His aim was to give inspirationand encourdecreeof Cyrusin the first chapter. Meyer's work was immediately for a considerable and time there- agement to his people, and in this he certainly after acceptedby the majority of scholarsas the was successful. He was not writing for the Genand final word on the subject; both the " Urkunden tiles, who had their own chronology their own " accountof the Persian kings, with which he lnay and the history containing them were now held to be eminently trustworthy. So, for example, well have been familiar; it did not concernhim, (Jornill, in the fifth edition of his E1,nleitt4ng nor his people; The older doctrine of "Medes and Persians," (1905), could say of the truly ridiculous"royal whichthe Chronicler inherited,was likewisea had letter" in Ezra T: 12-26, that its genuineness was purely Jewish possession. It was the story of a completelyestablished. Meyer'sargumentswere weak, when they were deliverancepromisedand fulfilled, worthy to be examined,and it was not difficultto refute them, mentioned in the same breath with the rescue and if anyonecould wish to undertake task. Well- from Egyptianbondage, neverto be forgotten. the Here, again, the recordsand conclusionsof the hausen,in a brief reviewof the Entstehungin the Gottingische gelehrteAnzetgen, 189T,Nr. 2, scored Gentilescould be left out of account. As in the Meyer'sattempts to deal with the Aramaiclan- case of the chronology,so also in the shaping of guage, and showed that a fatal defect in his history,the chosenpeoplemust hold to their own reasoningwas due to his insufNcient acquaintance picture of events, which the prophetshad given with Jewish literature. The latter weaknesswas them. The programprescribedfor the children eventuallyuncovered others. Plentiful evidence of Israel, to " separatethemselvesfrom all forby eigners" (Neh. 9: 2), was seriously meant and of the Chronicler's handiworkin the letters and in a measure effectively maintained, from (at edicts was seen by Wellhausen and his successors, least) the early Greekperioddownto the time of but recognitionof the true meaning of this was the Seder 'Olam Rabbah -to mention no later slow in coming. The present writer tried for a times. It was with this aim, the separateness of long time to believe, that though the documents Israel, that the elaborate stories of Ezra and werenot genuine,the Chronicler receivedand Nehemiahwerecomposed the Chronicler. had by incorporated them. Thereis no valid reason,howUnderthe Seleucidsand Ptolemies,and perhaps

TORREY: "

Medesand Persians"

especially in the time of turmoil and horror alludedto in Dan. 2: 41-43 (middle of the third century), the " saints of the Most High " appearedto be an insignificantfactor in the world. had Even their bitter rivals,the Samaritans, for a time the upper hand. It was then that Daniel offeredtheir (of chapters1-6), and the Chronicler encouragement,telling their people how great kings, Babylonian, Median, and Persian, had the acknowledged God of Israel and given great included help to his worshippers. The Chronicler also an ingenious delimitation of the historic Israel, effectuallyshutting out (theoretically)the
Samaritans.26
26

NeitherDaniel,with his thrilling tales of divine with his frameworkof help, nor the Chronicler, of historyand orderlysuccession royalbenefactors, had any thought of foreign readers. In short,the entire Israeliteschemeof Medesand Persiansis a creation of patriotic and religious fervor which standsby itself, it cannotbe fittedinto any Gentile history.
was so manifestly absurd in its main features, however (multitudes returning to an unoccupied Judea and dropping into "tlleir cities " which had been waitina for them, undisturbed, for seventy years, etc.), that the Samaritans can hardly have been greatly disturbed by it. Nor is there evidence that the Jews themselves paid attention to the story until many years later.

His theory of a return from the Babylonian exile

A REVERSED CHINESE ART TERM C. RICHARD RUDOLPH

UNIVERSITY TORONTO OF

After Chang describeshis method of making We are greatly indebtedto the bibliophileMao through mounting paste, and gives variationson his forChina (1599-1659) for the preservation, which uses the his prolific publishing activities, of many works rnula, Xlao inserts a commentary c which might otherwisehave beenlost. But unfor- expressionhxang-ytng twice: " Accordingto Li is tunately in his zeal for quantity, Mao frequently Chi-fu4 d (758-814), ' H?wng-ytng requiredfor sacrificed accuracy and allowed many errors to mounting (specimensof) calligraphy.>(But) in of appearin workswhich cameunderhis editorship.1 my familythereare severalexamples calligraphy One such error occurs in his commentaryto the on hqxang-ytng, of which are worthless." This all cannotbe foundin Chinesedictionaraes essayon the techniqueof mountingand decorating expression pictures and scrolls2 in the oldest comprehensive or encyclopedias. the reverse, does ytng-huBng, But cht history of Chineseart, L-tlat rntng-hua b (ch. occur in these sourcesand is also encountered in 3, pt. 3), completedin 847 3 by the art historian Chineseworks on art. A summaryof the points and calligraphistChangYen-yuan.b upon which the sources concur shows that this term designatedtwo types of treatedpaper: l ZfJAS, VII ( 1942/43 ), 245* 1. A paperusedduringthe T'angdynasty(6182 This essay has been translated but is awaiting
further research on some obscure points. In an address delivered in New York on January 25, 1945, the late Professor Paul Pelliot strongly recommendeda complete translation of Li-tas mtng-ha chi. 3 Otto Fischer, Chinesische Landschaftsmalerei (Munich, 1921), p. 128, and some other western writers have erroneously given the date of publication as 841. This is impossible inasmuch as the year 847 is given both in cyclical and nien-hao form (the latter negating possibility of error or anticipation because it involves a nten-hao different from that used in 841 ) in the last line of ch. 1, pt. 1, of Li-tai mtng-hua chi itself.a Moreover, a few lines before this Chang says, " from (the beginning of) the sacred T'ang (dynasty) to the present is 230 years." This also gives the year 847. Those relying upon western sources may have been misled by Hirth's Uber die einheimischen Quellerw zur Geschichte
der chinesischerw Malerei von den altesterw Zeit bis zum

14. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1897) which gives 841 as the end of the period covered by Chang (as stated in Li-tcii mtng-hua c71t, loc. cit. ), but Hirth also says that the work was eompleted in 847. Chinese speeialists in art bibliography agree on this date (ef. Shu hua shu-lu chieh-t' b (Peiping, 1932), ch. 12, p. 2b. 4 Here Mao may be making a direct quotation from one of Li Chi-fu's rather numerous works. If this be the case, then Li would be originally responsible, but this does not alter the fact, nor does it relieve Mao of his responsibility as editor.