Abstract
Robert Rollinger argues that Cyrus's conquest of Babylon in 53 9 BCE does not necessarily mean that a new ‘Persian’ epoch started. Continuity and change rather appear side-by-side. As such, it is difficult to define what is uniquely ‘Persian’ in this era. With this view Rollinger captures the present state of consensus regarding the Persian Empire. Although the Persian Empire displays numerous unique features, one should not ignore the continuities with customs and peoples of former imperial regimes, as well as its incorporation of a diversity of ethnic and cultural identities. These insights warn against an ‘over-interpretation’ of the uniqueness of the Persian period, a tendency which often emerges in biblical scholarship.
Keywords
Introduction: Stating the Problem
The Persian period has become a popular focus in biblical studies of recent years. Not only have biblical scholars begun to reach a consensus that the majority of Hebrew Bible writings originated or were finalized in the Persian period, but more sources, literary and archaeological, have also become available from and around this period. It is often emphasized in biblical studies environments that a new phase in Israel's history started with the release from exile shortly after Cyrus the Great came to power, and that this phase formed the backdrop for the processes of reconstruction that took place after the exile.
Although the increased attention to the Persian period in scholarship of recent years should be welcomed, it seems that we are entering a phase where we will have to start warning against an over-interpretation of this period, and particularly against seeing this period as unique and isolated from previous and subsequent regimes, and from other surrounding nations/areas. In some circles of biblical scholarship there is a tendency to overemphasize the novelty of the Persian period, and to see a dramatic break with past conditions in this transfer of imperial power. This is of course understandable against the backdrop of how biblical writings like Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai and Ezra–Nehemiah, as well as the ending of Chronicles evaluate this period. They indicate how dramatic an experience the transfer to the Persian period must have been for those who were exiled before by the Neo-Babylonians, as well as for those who remained in the land. However, they do so almost exclusively with a positive appreciation of the Persian regime. 1 Because many biblical scholars rely heavily on these biblical witnesses to inform them about ‘the Persian period’, the result is frequently an oversimplified understanding of this period and its influence on the formation of biblical literature. This happens within a context where studies on Persian historiography have also blossomed in recent years. It is my contention that biblical scholars would do well to take note of the developments in this subfield of ancient history in order to come to a richer and more nuanced appreciation of ‘the Persian period’.
In what follows, I will first dwell on some developments in the specialized field of Persian historiography, before focusing on how this impacts on our understanding of biblical historiography of ‘the Persian period’ and on our interpretations of biblical literature from this period, such as the historiography of Chronicles.
Insights from Recent Developments in Persian Historiography
The historiography of Ancient Persia has for a long time suffered from the perception that there are insufficient objective sources available from this context to engage in responsible history writing. 2 Historians were very much aware of the ideologically biased nature of the Greek sources (e.g. Herodotus), and since only a handful of texts originating from Ancient Persia itself were extant, not many had an interest in writing this history. However, during the last quarter of the twentieth century a new interest in Ancient Persian historiography, particularly in the Achaemenid period, developed. This was partly due to the fact that the field of historical studies was able to loosen itself from the positivistic shackles of earlier times and started facing the reality of having to deal with the fact that all sources—Greek and Persian—are biased, and that objective history-writing is simply not possible. 3 The new interest in Ancient Persia, however, was also sparked by a series of conferences that were held in Groningen in the Netherlands over a period of almost a decade, organized by the late Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, bringing together some of the most prominent historians specializing in Achaemenid history. This series of conferences from 1983–1990 stimulated a new interest in Ancient Persian history and generated new energy and resources for the study of it. 4
Another stimulus in this field came with Marc van de Mieroop's review article, published in 1997 in Bibliotheca Orientalis, 5 of Amelié Kuhrt's monumental history of the Ancient Near East. 6 In this article he reassessed ‘some general questions regarding the writing of a history of the Ancient Near East’. 7 The first problem he identifies is the following: ‘When historians delineate their field of study by a regional designator, they base themselves most often on modern concepts, such as existing nation states, that did not necessarily exist in the minds of the people they studied’. 8 This point reminded historians of the ancient Near East in general, and of Ancient Persia in particular, that regional designators for Mesopotamian powers should be treated with extreme care since they may skew our understanding of the influence of these powers over physical boundaries. Another important point made by Van de Mieroop is that ‘Mesopotamian history has been portrayed as a progression of disconnected, uneven regimes…’ 9 The portrayal of these regimes in modern historiography is often determined by the extent to which textual sources of these regions are available. Poorly documented regimes are often neglected and their role underplayed in modern history-writing. A last significant point raised by Van de Mieroop is that ancient Near Eastern history-writing was still dominated at the end of the twentieth century by the Rankian ideal that the past can be reconstructed ‘as it actually happened’. Van de Mieroop summarizes this misunderstanding as follows: ‘The documents, especially when they are properly collected, are thought to provide the building blocks for a reconstruction of historical reality that is unbiased by philosophical trends’. But, he indicates, ‘Both the possibilities of an unbiased approach and of the reconstruction of “reality” are now commonly doubted’. 10
We have seen in biblical studies environments how these views of Van de Mieroop and similar views expressed by historians of Ancient Israel have informed our reflection on whether a history of Ancient Israel can be written, and if so, how. The debate between so-called minimalists and maximalists in the 1990s and early 2000s stood in the wake of the same movement described by Van de Mieroop. However, in my opinion, biblical scholars have not taken sufficient note of how this same discussion played out in Persian historiography.
One prominent participant in those circles is Robert Rollinger. He takes his cue from Marc van de Mieroop's work when he identifies a challenge in Persian historiography:
It is often assumed that with Cyrus's conquest of Babylon in 539 Mesopotamian history came to an end and a new ‘Persian’ epoch began… Yet this opinion causes difficulties because continuity and change appear side-by-side during this time… Since the Persian Empire was a multiethnic and multicultural conglomerate…, it is hard to define what may be regarded as genuinely ‘Persian’; any ethnic interpretation of the extant data seems problematic and anachronistic. 11
This quote emphasizes that it is too simplistic to use the label ‘the Persian period’ in our scholarship if we do not fully appreciate the complexities of continuity and discontinuity over time and over geographical boundaries in the ancient Near East, and of the ‘multiethnic and multicultural’ composition of this empire. Although the Persian Empire had numerous unique features, one should not ignore the continuities with customs and peoples of former imperial regimes, as well as its incorporation of a diversity of ethnic and cultural identities. 12
In one of his recent contributions Rollinger discusses, for example, whether the Persian Empire does indeed fit the category of ‘empire’? 13 Although he answers the question in the affirmative after considering different characteristics of empire, he is of the opinion that one should rather see the Persian Empire within the context of a Mesopotamian imperial continuum that stretched from the neo-Assyrian Empire, through Neo-Babylonian and Persian domination, to the Hellenistic Empire under Alexander the Great and its successors.
It [i.e. the Persian empire—LCJ] was embedded in a continuum of ancient Near Eastern empires which are differentiated chronologically according to convention as the ‘neo-Assyrian Empire’, ‘neo-Babylonian-Chaldean Empire’, and the ‘Persian’, that is the ‘Teispid-Achaemenid’ Empire. However, across the boundaries of these empires one can observe historical-structural continuities, and within these imperial blocks some discontinuities can also be observed. This basic observation also applies to the epochs following the Persian Empire, namely the time of Alexander III (‘the Great’) and the Diadochoi states. 14
Rollinger repeats this view at the beginning of his study on how history was written in Teispid and Achaemenid Persia and warns against the danger of neglecting these factors. He indicates that, in his study, he ‘will…not focus on finding a specific or genuine ‘Persian’ concept of thinking and writing about the past but more generally on interpreting all relevant concepts that can be observed in our sources during Teispid and Achaemenid times’. 15 In other words, his description of historiographical trends in documents and inscriptions from Teispid and Achaemenid times takes into account that these trends may not be uniquely ‘Persian’, but may also reflect continuities with the broader ancient Near East, both geographically and chronologically.
In discourse with Sancisi-Weerdenburg's identification of three phases in the development of a conception of history in Achaemenid history, Rollinger then suggests that one can identify four phases in the extant texts and inscriptions. 16 The first phase, according to him, can be observed in the monumental inscription and rock relief of King Darius I at Bisitun: ‘Against a clearly political background, the whole monument, and especially the texts, have the purpose of presenting an official version of events of the most recent past, explaining Darius's ascent to power, and obscuring his usurpation’. 17 The past is thus used to legitimize the contemporary history. The second phase is represented by Column V in the Bisitun Inscription, which is a later addition to the monument and which is written in Old Persian only. Here, the idea of world dominion starts to emerge. The main focus of this text is not on a specific historical event in an exactly localized geographical setting but on larger ideological implications. 18 The third phase is represented by the Achaemenid royal inscriptions hailing from the reign of Xerxes. During this time it seems that it was important to portray a firm world order that was established in the political realm. ‘This order is timeless, just as the king, his office, and his empire are timeless. Historical events are reduced to an archetypical dichotomy between order and disorder in a static world ruled by a universal king guided by his god Auramazda.’ 19 The fourth phase is represented by the Achaemenid royal inscriptions dating from the time after Xerxes:
After Xerxes the royal inscriptions diminish further in length and are reduced to short notices… Even the smallest hints at historical events have vanished. No lists of countries are attested anymore. The only form of activity recognizable in these inscriptions concerns buildings: it remains essential for the ruling king to demonstrate that he has accomplished what his father had begun. The king himself seems to have lost all individual characteristics. He is no longer an identifiable person of flesh and blood with a specific life story but an office-holder who, compared to other Achaemenid kings, has no specific features anymore. 20
The changing views on kingship and royal power observed in inscriptions of different Achaemenid periods are reflections of the development in Achaemenid royal ideology overtime. Rollinger's description of these four phases therefore indicates that it would be too simplistic to work with the conception of only one of these phases when speaking of ‘the Persian period’ in biblical studies. The implications of this view will be discussed below.
‘The Persian Period’ from the Perspective of Biblical Historiography
When discussing ‘the Persian period’ in biblical historiography, two problematic tendencies can be observed. The first one was already mentioned in the introduction to the present study, namely that ‘the Persian period’ is often ‘reconstructed’ fully from the biblical writings (mainly Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, but also from prophetic books such as Haggai). Persian history is then viewed through biblical eyes, so to speak. 21 Although the biblical literature from this period certainly remains an important witness to the intellectual and religious mindscapes in Yehud during this time, these writings did not have the intention of providing an objective account of the past, or their own time for that matter. Rather, they were subjective and biased accounts of the circumstances of the time, participating in the broader societal and religious discourses of their day, and contributing to processes of self-understanding. To ‘read off the history of the Persian era from the biblical writings is not only a dubious practice in terms of its historiographical methodology, but it also leads to circular argumentation.
In order to avoid this situation—and in the wake of the so-called maximalist–minimalist debate—biblical scholars increasingly let themselves be informed by archaeology, the aim being to have a better understanding of the historical circumstances during ‘the Persian period’. Archaeology is seen to contribute towards reconstructing the intellectual and religious mindscapes of Persian-period Yehud—or of any context for that matter—through the discovery of further written or graphic material (inscriptions, seals, iconography, etc.), but it produces particularly valuable information about the physical environment, including settlement patterns and changes. This information enables biblical scholars to form a better picture of life during the Persian era.
Archaeologists point out that Jerusalem was most probably a very sparsely populated place during Persian times. Estimates by archaeologists and historiographers range from a relatively high 1,500–3,000 (Carter's view) 22 inhabitants in Jerusalem to the very low 400–500 (Finkelstein's view). 23 The province of Yehud probably had an estimated 12,000 to 30,000 inhabitants in total. The situation in Jerusalem changed markedly during the middle to the end of the fifth century BCE—probably coinciding with its proclamation as capital of an independent Persian province—when it gained political and administrative influence again. 24
It is certainly very difficult to determine from archaeological data the extent of the social layer that enjoyed high literacy in Yehud during this time. Ben Zvi refers to studies that researched this phenomenon in Near Eastern societies when he indicates that one should assume that no more than approximately 0.25–0.3% of the society in Persian-period Yehud would have possessed the kind of literacy needed to write the sophisticated literature we witness in the Hebrew Bible, and to read and re-read these documents. 25 With the increase of population, but particularly as a result of the increased functions and higher reputation of Jerusalem in the later Persian period (formerly referred to as Persian II), 26 one may assume that the likelihood of literature emerging during these years also increased.
Ehud Ben Zvi rightly indicates that the presence of a group of literati, which is evident from the biblical writings we possess, presupposes ‘(1) the availability of the resources necessary for educating and continuously supporting their activities…, and (2) a need for such activity in society’. 27 With regard to the first point, Ben Zvi indicates:
The availability of resources in itself presupposes the existence of a center of power in Jerusalem able to control the resources of Judah efficiently and channel them according to its priorities. Therefore, it is reasonable to associate most of the biblical literary activity usually assigned to the Persian Period (and, of course, its outcome, the bulk of biblical literature) with a period that follows rather then [sic] precedes: (1) the establishment of an efficient urban center controlling Judah's resources, (2) the establishment of the Jerusalemite temple…and, (3) the beginning of the major increase in population and settlements in Judah that separates the Persian I and II Periods… In other words, the historical circumstances of the Persian II Period were more conducive to this literary activity than those of the Persian I Period. 28
The community in Jerusalem relied on both internal and external resources to—inter alia—support the literati. The ability to draw resources from internal sources depended fully on ‘a theology (or ideology) that legitimised the role of Jerusalem and its temple’. 29 External resources and policies also played an important role in the development of the province and its capital. According to Ben Zvi, ‘the re-establishment of an efficient regional center in Jerusalem and of its temple were not only allowed by the Achaemenid center of power, but it actually provided the conditions necessary for, and allocated resources to, these endeavors’. 30
This discussion emphasizes that it would be a misconception in biblical studies to over-emphasize the early Persian period—particularly under Cyrus II who is mentioned regularly in the Hebrew Bible—as the most influential and unique period in post-exilic Israel's existence. To speak of ‘the Persian period’ in an unqualified way does not do justice to the insights gleaned from the studies discussed above.
The second problematic tendency observed in biblical scholarship on Persian-period literature is the tendency to view and describe the Persian-period circumstances very generally, even indiscriminately, regardless of the various levels of socio-historical existence which can be observed during the post-exilic era. To speak of ‘the Persian-period context’ in Yehud is an oversimplification of a very complex society. Yehud in the late Persian era functioned on different levels which can, and should be, distinguished, and cannot be isolated or separated. At least four modes of socio-historical existence can be identified in this time and context. First, Yehud formed part of the Persian imperial context as a presumably independent province. Second, Yehud stood in close relation to the province of Samaria to the north (the former northern kingdom of Israel), as well as to other surrounding provinces. Third, Yehud more or less comprised the former tribal areas of Judah and Benjamin, and the relationship between these areas contributed to the social dynamics of the time. Fourth, the cultic community in Yehud's centre, Jerusalem, was made up of clergy from different origins and of varying affiliations, including those who had previously been exiled and had returned, as well as those who remained in the land.
These four levels of socio-historic existence occurred simultaneously and concurrently, and therefore produced a multi-levelled, complex society with different ideological tendencies and power hierarchies intersecting constantly. To indicate that certain biblical literature originated in ‘the Persian period’ and communicated in that context reflects too simplistic an understanding of the complex society and differentiated power relations in operation in this time.
The next section will examine some implications of the views discussed above for our interpretations of Chronicles in particular.
Implications for Interpreting Biblical Literature of ‘the Persian Period’ (with Focus on Chronicles)
Before I take my argument one step further to focus on the implications for interpreting ‘Persian period’ biblical literature in general, and Chronicles in particular, it is necessary to summarize the insights from the previous two sections.
From recent developments in Ancient Persian historiography the following emerged:
Geographical and temporal continuities between the Achaemenid Empire and preceding and following imperial regimes should be acknowledged. Cyrus the Great therefore does not represent such a radical break in Mesopotamian history as is often assumed in biblical scholarship.
Since the Persian Empire was a conglomerate of diverse ethnic and cultural groups, it is difficult to define some influence from this period as uniquely ‘Persian’.
Four phases in Achaemenid thinking and writing about their own history can be identified. The dominant views in each of these phases are probably a good reflection of the royal ideology of the time. This point emphasizes that one cannot work with a generalized perception of ‘Achaemenid royal ideology’.
Developments in biblical historiography of the so-called Persian period called our attention to the following two aspects:
One should take into account that the late Persian period (formerly called the Persia II period, introduced by the promulgation of the province of Yehud and Jerusalem as capital, probably in the middle of the fifth century BCE) should be distinguished clearly from the early Persian period (which is often associated with the reign of Cyrus the Great).
After Yehud and Jerusalem re-emerged in the late Persian period as an influential area and city respectively, power relations dominating society became complex. At least four levels of socio-historic connectivity during this time determined these power relations, namely relationships between the imperial centre and the provincial periphery, between Yehud and Samaria (and other neighbouring provinces), between Judah and Benjamin, and among different cultic groups in the Jerusalem temple.
These insights should be taken into account in our interpretations of biblical literature from this period. In what follows, I will focus on Chronicles.
As I indicated above, the biblical writings associate the dramatic turn of international events after the exile mainly with Cyrus the Great (King Cyrus II). Cyrus's conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE is seen by the biblical writings as introducing a new era in Mesopotamia, 31 which also had its impact on those areas that were under the Babylonian yoke. 32 It is suggested that the Judahite return from exile in the next year was initiated by an edict of Cyrus, of which some reflections may be observed in the final verses of Chronicles and the first chapter of Ezra. The very positive appraisal of the Persian Empire, and particularly of Cyrus the Great, is understandable within this biblical context. 33 However, one should remember that the supposed greater openness during Cyrus's reign had a political function. 34 The mentioning of this ‘golden era’ in the Persian imperial past within the rhetoric of the book of Chronicles also had a specific function.
When investigating the rhetoric of identity negotiation in Chronicles, one should bear in mind that it was not the time of Cyrus the Great that formed the context for the genesis of this literature. The book probably originated towards the end of the Persian Empire, that is, in the first half of the fourth century BCE. 35 The ‘Persian context’ which should therefore be considered here is the latter part of Persian rule, before the collapse caused by Alexander the Great of Macedonia in 332 BCE. It is particularly the era of ‘turmoil’ from Artaxerxes I (465–405 BCE) until Darius III (336–330 BCE) which forms the international political background during which the book of Chronicles was written and on the basis of which its rhetoric should be understood. 36
What affected the Levant most was Persia's troublesome relationship with Egypt during the latter part of the empire. During the reign of Artaxerxes I, the Persian king had to cope with revolt in Egypt. This was, however, successfully contained and further areas were secured. After Artaxerxes's death a turbulent time followed, however. His successor, Xerxes II, was murdered a few months later by a half-brother, Sogdianus. Another son of Artaxerxes I, Ochus, managed to overcome Sogdianus and ascended the Persian throne as King Darius II (424–404 BCE). He was succeeded by his son, Arses, who became king under the throne name Artaxerxes II. Egypt was regained only much later under Artaxerxes III in 343 BCE. For a period of roughly sixty years Yehud and Idumea formed the frontier with Egypt. Wiesehöfer therefore indicates that the strategic importance of these Levantine areas should not be underestimated:
Although Judah's importance for the development of a Jewish consciousness and community in the early Second Temple period may seduce biblical scholars into overestimating the region's relevance for Persian imperial policy, one should not forget that Palestine was a major land-bridge and that its route network must have been highly responsible for the demographic expansion and economic growth of Persian-period Palestine. Besides, Persian fortified places in Yehud and Idumea must have served to police communications with Egypt. 37
It is against the background of these specific events that the Chronicler's work most probably originated and contributed to public discourse and identity negotiation.
At present, the majority of Chronicles scholars agree that the writer(s) of Chronicles remain(s) anonymous. The textual evidence (both biblical and extra-biblical) does not allow us to be more specific. We may. however, assume that the Chronicler (as a single author, or a collective) belonged to the literate elite in Jerusalem, with a close association to the personnel of the Second Temple and a good knowledge of past historiographical traditions of Israel and Judah. In connection with this last issue, some further studies have emerged in recent years which have broadened our knowledge of these literati. These studies provide some avenues for being more specific about the Chronicler's affiliation. 38 It is highly likely that the literati behind literature such as Chronicles were most probably closely associated with the temple clergy. They were advocates of the centrality of the temple and their endeavours were meant to legitimize the community in Jerusalem from a theological point of view. One may thus assume that there was a close association, if not identification, with the priestly guilds in the Second Temple. 39
When this background to the book of Chronicles is considered, it is important to note that its rhetorical thrust should be sought in the complexity of the specific timeframe of the Persian period. One may assume that the Chronicler and his guild probably did not need to legitimize their existence as a community in these circumstances that recognized their independence as Persian province and the strategic importance of their geographical location between the Persian imperial centre and Egypt. In contrast to Ezra–Nehemiah, for example, Chronicles rather breathes a tone of inclusion of All-Israel into the wider socio-political and socio-religious world. It seems that the multiethnic and multicultural conglomerate of the Persian Empire afforded the Chronicler the opportunity to contribute to co-defining the empire. The Chronicler's negotiation of a changed All-Israelite identity stands in continuity with their past traditions (mainly represented by the Deuteronomistic History, but also some Pentateuchal traditions), but this process also interacts with the late Persian context in a meaningful manner. On the one hand, the Chronicler proclaims to his audience in Jerusalem: ‘Nothing has changed—we are still the people of Yahweh!’ On the other hand, however, the Chronicler indicates that everything has changed, and that their existence relies on their integration into the Persian dispensation. This is particularly signified by the positive reminder of the golden era in Persian imperial rule during the time of Cyrus. The mentioning of Cyrus and the recalling of his edict which freed Israel from the exilic bondage were most probably not meant as historical notes, but rather as iconic references to the greater openness experienced by the Yehudite community in the late Persian period. Although this part of the Persian period was characterized by greater political turmoil, the status of Yehud as an independent province and Jerusalem as the recognized capital, together with its strategic location as land-bridge between Persia and Egypt, gave the Chronicler the confidence to urge his audience towards identifying themselves as part of the Persian Empire, and not as a closed enclave threatened by the empire.
This point emphasizes that the assessment of the Persian Empire from the imperial centre and from the provincial periphery respectively, differs significantly. We have seen in Rollinger's description of the fourth phase in Persian historiography, that is, the time of international political turmoil after Xerxes (and therefore the time of the Chronicler), that
Even the smallest hints at historical events have vanished… The only form of activity recognizable in [the] inscriptions concerns buildings… The king himself seems to have lost all individual characteristics. He is no longer an identifiable person of flesh and blood with a specific life story but an office-holder who, compared to other Achaemenid kings, has no specific features anymore. 40
It is ironic that within this context of Persian self-appraisal, the literati in Jerusalem, who were closely associated with the priesthood, construct an elaborate narrative historiography from their former traditions. It is furthermore ironic that the literati remind their readers of the glorious golden era of Cyrus the Great of Persia. Their account of All-Israel's past culminates in Cyrus's words: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up’ (2 Chron. 36.23 NRSV). It is clear that different levels of socio-historic existence overlap and concur when the Chronicler makes this claim within his local Jerusalemite context, but simultaneously within ‘the Persian Empire’ of a specific period.
I have argued that biblical scholars will do well to speak in a more sophisticated way about ‘the Persian period’ in their endeavours to interpret biblical literature from this era. Not only should biblical scholars take cognisance of the different socio-political conditions in the Persian Empire and in Yehud during the more or less two hundred years of Achaemenid rule, but it would also be wise to develop an awareness of developments in Ancient Persian historiography during these two centuries. It would furthermore be prudent to take into account that the biblical writings of this period communicated in a multi-levelled socio-historic milieu where different rhetorical strategies were used to achieve their persuasive goals. Further work on Chronicles, but also on other Hebrew Bible corpora that originated or were finalized during this era, is certainly warranted!
Footnotes
1.
See the discussion by Josef Wiesehöfer, ‘Persien’, in Michael Fieger, Jutta Krispenz, and Jörg Lanckau (eds.), Wörterbuch Alttestamentliche Motive (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2013).
2.
For in-depth presentations, as well as general overviews of the Achaemenid period in Ancient Persia, the following books may be consulted: Muhammed A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1989); Josef Wiesehöfer, Das frühe Persien: Geschichte eines antiken Weltreichs (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1999); Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P.T. Daniels; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002); Josef Wiesehöfer, Das antike Persien (Düsseldorf: Albatros, 2005); Maria Brosius, The Persians: An Introduction (Peoples of the Ancient World; London: Routledge, 2006); Matt W. Waters, Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 B.C.E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
3.
See, e.g., the discussion in Marc Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’, Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1997), pp. 286–306.
4.
The outcomes of the conferences were documented in the following volumes, which appeared in a series on Achaemenid history: Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenberg (ed.), Sources, Structures and Synthesis: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 1; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987); Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amelie Kuhrt (eds.), The Greek Sources: Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 2; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987); Amelie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Method and Theory: Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 3; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1988); Amelie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Centre and Periphery: Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 4; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990); Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Jan Willem Drijvers (eds.), The Roots of the European Tradition: Proceedings of the 1987 Groningen Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 5; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990); Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amelie Kuhrt (eds.), Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire, Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History, 6; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991); Jan Willem Drijvers and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Through Travellers’ Eyes: European Travellers on the Iranian Monuments (Achaemenid History, 7; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991); Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Amelie Kuhrt, and Margaret Cool Root (eds.), Continuity and Change: Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid Workshop, April 6–8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Achaemenid History, 8; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1994). See also the volume which was compiled in memory of Sancisi-Weerdenburg after her untimely death: Wouter Henkelman and Amelie Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Achaemenid History, 13; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2003).
5.
See Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’.
6.
Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, C. 3000–330 BC (London/New York: Routledge, 1995).
7.
Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’, p. 286.
8.
Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’, p. 287.
9.
Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’, p. 290.
10.
Van de Mieroop, ‘On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East’, p. 304.
11.
Robert Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History in Teispid and Achaemenid Persia’, in Kurt A. Raaflaub (ed.), Thinking, Recording, and Writing History in the Ancient World (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2014), pp. 187–212 (187).
12.
See, e.g., the discussion in Jennifer Gates-Foster, ‘Achaemenids, Royal Power, and Persian Ethnicity’, in Jeremy McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), pp. 175–93. See also Robartus J. Van der Spek, ‘Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations’, in Michael Kozuh et al. (ed.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 68; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014), pp. 233–64.
13.
See Robert Rollinger, ‘Das Teispidisch-Achaimenidische Großreich ein “Imperium” Avant la Lettre?’, in Robert Rollinger and Michael Gehler (eds.), Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte Epochenübergreifende und Globalhistorische Vergleiche (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014), pp. 149–92.
14.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, p. 149 (author's translation). The original text reads: Es ist eingebettet in ein Kontinuum altvorderasiatischer Großreiche, die konventionell in die chronologisch aufeinander folgenden Blöcke ‘Neuassyrisches Reich’, ‘Neubabylonisch-Chaldäisches Reich’, ‘Persisches, i.e. teispidischachaimenidisches Reich’ eingeteilt werden. Über die Grenzen dieser Reiche hinaus lassen sich sowohl historisch-strukturelle Kontinuitäten beobachten, wie sich auch Diskontinuitäten innerhalb der imperialen Blöcke erkennen lassen. Diese grundsätzliche Beobachtung gilt auch für die dem Persischen Reich nachfolgende Epoche der Zeit Alexanders III. (‘des Großen’) und der Diadochenstaaten.’
15.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, p. 187.
16.
Unlike Sancisi-Weerdenburg, he treats the time of Xerxes as a separate phase.
17.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, p. 196.
18.
For a discussion of the influence of the Bisitun inscriptions on Babylonians and Judaeans, see Gard Granerød, ‘By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text among Babylonians and Judaeans’, JSJ 44 (2013), pp. 455–80.
19.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, p. 201.
20.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, pp. 201–202.
21.
This does not apply, however, to all biblical scholars writing about the Persian period. Scholars such as Lester Grabbe and Erhard Gerstenberger applied sound methodology in their works without committing this error. See Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. I. Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (London: T&T Clark International, 2004); Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Israel in Der Perserzeit: 5. Und 4. Jahrhundert V. Chr. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2005).
22.
Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1999).
23.
Israel Finkelstein, ‘Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder’, JHS 9 (2010); online: 
. See also Oded Lipschits, ‘Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century B.C.E.’, in Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 19–52, and, in the same volume, David Ussishkin, ‘The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period’, pp. 147–66.
24.
Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, TN: Eisenbrauns, 2005).
25.
Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible’, in Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete (JSOTSup, 244; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 194–209 (195).
26.
See Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period.
27.
Ben Zvi, ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem’, p. 196.
28.
Ben Zvi, ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem’, pp. 196–97.
29.
Ben Zvi, ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem’, p. 197.
30.
Ben Zvi, ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem’, p. 198.
31.
For discussions of this period in Persian history, see Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, Chapter 1; Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, I; Gerstenberger, Israel in Der Perserzeit, Brosius, The Persians, pp. 8–14; Waters, Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 B.C.E., Chapter 3.
32.
The text of the Cyrus cylinder (on display in the British Museum in London) bears witness to this transfer in imperial power to Cyrus II, the king of Anshan (as he is called in the inscription). See the discussion of this cuneiform document from 539 BCE in Amélie Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 70–74. See also Amélie Kuhrt, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT25 (1983), pp. 83–97.
33.
See Wiesehöfer, ‘Persien’.
34.
See particularly Kuhrt, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’ who emphasizes this point.
35.
For a rationale for this dating of Chronicles, see section 3.2 in Louis C. Jonker, Defining All-Israel in Chronicles: Multi-Levelled Identity Negotiation in Late Persian Period Yehud (FAT, I/106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). See also Louis C. Jonker, ‘Who Constitutes Society? Yehud's Self-Understanding in the Late Persian Era as Reflected in the Books of Chronicles’, JBL 127 (2008), pp. 703–24, and ‘The Chronicler's Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era’, OTE21 (2008), pp. 653–69.
36.
Pierre Briant describes this period as ‘An Empire in Turmoil’; see Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, Part 4. See also Josef Wiesehöfer, ‘The Achaemenid Empire in the Fourth Century B.C.E.: A Period of Decline?’, in Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 11–30. Briant includes the reign of Xerxes (486–165 BCE) in this part. But see the description of the religious conditions below. The interpretation of Xerxes's reign remains a point of contention in Ancient Persian historiography. See Wiesehöfer, ‘Herodot, Xerxes und der Alte Orient’.
37.
Josef Wiesehöfer, ‘Achaemenid Rule and its Impact on Yehud’, in Louis C. Jonker (ed.), Texts, Contexts and Readings in Post-exilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (FAT, II/5 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 171–85 (182).
38.
See particularly the following contributions by Ehud Ben Zvi: ‘The Urban Center of Jerusalem’; idem, ‘Observations on Prophetic Characters, Prophetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati’, in Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis (eds.), The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 19–30; ‘The Concept of Prophetic Books and Its Historical Setting’, in Diana Vikander Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud (repr., London: Equinox, 2011), pp. 73–95. These contributions focus on the emergence of prophetic books, but they also reflect the recent scholarship on literacy in ancient Yehud.
39.
See, e.g., Ben Zvi, ‘Observations on Prophetic Characters’, pp. 26–27.
40.
Rollinger, ‘Thinking and Writing about History’, pp. 201–202.