Yehudite Imaginations of King Darius and His Officials: Views from the Province beyond the River

Abstract

This article analyzes representations of the Persian king Darius and his officials in the Books of Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, and Ezra 4–6 in the current Hebrew Bible. These writings, produced in the Persian period or somewhat later, portray these literary characters in various ways in relation to the restoration of the community, city, and temple of YHWH in Jerusalem. In biblical scholarship, the main interest has been to scrutinize the conditions behind the textual representations of Darius, related to dating the selected texts and the temple restoration, as well as Darius’s role as the central supplier of Achaemenid imperial ideology. The current study suggests refocusing by highlighting the historical significance of the literary imaginations of this monarch. What is at stake is not the historical Darius or the officials Zerubbabel, Sheshbazzar, and Tattenai, but rather literary representations of them suiting the needs of those who produced them. In Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, Darius’s role in the temple restoration is downplayed, while in Haggai, Zerubbabel is represented by a blend of Yahwistic and imperial signs and symbols, and in Zechariah 1–8, the imperial connotations are toned down. This is while Zerubbabel is decisive for authorizing both the temple community and the prophet. In Ezra 4–6, Darius is one of many Persian kings engaged in the restoration of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. While Zerubbabel gains support from the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, Sheshbazzar brings the vessels back to Jerusalem and lays the foundations of the temple on King Cyrus’s command. At the same time, Tattenai gets Cyrus’s order confirmed and, apart from that, is asked to stay away from the works of the Yehudites. By analyzing the representations of Darius and other Persian officials through a cultural-historical lens, selection and perspectivization are stressed. The selected writings convey local negotiations of power relations with the empire in terms of keeping a position in the imperial hierarchy while, at the same time, cultivating the identity of their subaltern group through certain symbols, institutions, and practices.