The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era
Yüklə 221,4 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 3 The Pax Achaemenidica
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669 663
the Syro-Palestinian area would also have taken note of the so-called ‘Kon- solidierungspolitik’ of Artaxerxes during his reign. Wiesehöfer (2006:34) states the following about Artaxerxes: ‘Außenpolitisch war der neue Herrscher überaus erfolgreich: Nicht nur wurden der von Athen unterstützte Inaros-Aufstand in Ägypten (460-454) nieder- und die athenischen Angriffe auf Zypern zurückgeschlagen, sondern es wurden auch die Levanteküste und Palästina militärisch gesichert. In diese Phase persischer Konsolidierungspolitik gehören wohl auch die Missionen Esras und Nehemias die für die Konstituierung der jüdischen Gemeinschaft und ihres Zentrums Jerusalem so bedeutsam werden sollten.’ 2 The Peace of Callias and later developments It is within this context that the so-called Peace of Callias is situated. According to a later classical source, namely Diodorus Siculus (12.4.4-6), the hostilities between Athens and Persia were brought to an end by an agreement that was made between these powers in 449 B.C.E.. The agreement was called after the Athenian officer who apparently negotiated the agreement with Artaxerxes. Although Herodotus does not specifically refer to the peace treaty, he writes about an Athenian embassy led by Cal- lias at Artaxerxes's court. Briant (2002:580), among other scholars, warns that one should not over-inter- pret the Peace of Callias, because the textual evidence is so scanty. 38
(2004:291) is also sceptical when he states that ‘most handbooks state that the “Peace of Callias” of 449 brought hostilities between Athens and Persia to an end. … [I]t seems unlikely [however] that the Persian king gave up in any way his claims on the Ionian Greeks or was outmanoeuvred diplomatically, as events during the rest of Ar- taxerxes's reign indicate.’ 39 Because of this scepticism about the existence of such a
38 The Peace of Callias is only mentioned by Diodorus (who wrote in the first century B.C.E.), but not (as might be expected) by the earlier Thucydides. Herodotus only vaguely refers to it, as mentioned above. Cf. Briant (2002:580). 39 Other authors at least assume that there was a treaty of some sort made between the Greeks and Persians in 449 B.C.E. (during the reign of Artaxerxes I). Cf. e. g. Gerstenberger (2004:60): ‘Nach einem halben Jahrhundert voller Blutvergiessen einigten sich die Parteien im erwähnten, sogenannten „Kalliasfrieden“ des Jahres 449 auf die Erhaltung der Autonomie in allen griechischen Städten auf dem Festland and in Westkleinasien und den Verzicht Athens auf Besitzansprüche auf die Insel Zypern, sowie die Länder Syrien und Ägypten. Der Friede war allerdings nur vorläufig. Gegen Ende des 5. und durch das 4. Jh. v.Chr. hindurch mischte sich Persien immer wieder in die griechischen Angelegenheiten ein, teilweise durch Unterstützung Spartas gegen Athen. Aber es gelang dem riesigen Imperium nicht, dauerhaft auf die europäische Seite des ägäischen Meeres überzugreifen. Warum? Vielleicht hatte sich die Kraft der herrschenden Perser erschöpft, vielleicht waren die Gesellschaftssysteme doch zu verschieden, zu inkompatibel, vielleicht lagen die größeren Kraftreserven bei den Griechen, deren makedonischer Zweig dann am Ende des vierten Jh. im kurzen Siegeslauf des Alexander das Pendel der Geschichte umkehren ließ.’
664 Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669
treaty, one should definitely rule out the possibility of any kind of literary dependence, namely that the Chronicler had any written sources about this peace treaty available. However, in order for the Chronicler to engage in discourse with a tradition, the his- toricity of that tradition is not necessarily important. Let me explain this point further by referring to (in my opinion) a helpful perspective from the classical scholar, P J Rhodes.
Rhodes (2006) too is sceptical about whether a treaty was accepted by both Greeks and Persians in 449 B.C.E.. However, he notes (Rhodes 2006:47-8): [F]rom the fourth century onwards [i e approximately 50 years after the supposed treaty – L.C.J.] everybody knew of a 'Peace of Callias' by which Athens bound the Persians to keep away from the Aegean and the west coast of Asia Minor… Most scholars have been sufficiently impressed by the later evidence to believe in a treaty. It is clear that the fears of the late 450s were no more and that Athens stopped prosecuting the war against Persia; there may even have been some kind of understanding with the Per- sian satraps in western Asia Minor; but the formal treaty was probably in- vented after 386, when the Greeks of Asia Minor had been handed back to Persia … to illustrate how much more glorious the past had been than the shameful present.
The reason why Rhodes chooses 386 B.C.E. as a watershed date in this regard is the events leading up to the so-called King's Peace, or Peace of Antalcidas. 40 After a period of disagreement among the Greek city-states about whether Persia's claim on the Asiatic Greeks should be accepted, Antalcidas of Sparta made an alliance with Tiribazus (who was reinstated as Persian satrap in Sardis), and they defeated the Athenians and recovered control of the Hellespont. After these successes Antalcidas could reckon on the support of the other Greek city-states and he negotiated a peace treaty with the Persian satrap, Tiribazus, which was proclaimed in 386 B.C.E.. Ac- cording to Rhodes (2006:193-194), Persia at last gained the Asiatic Greeks, whom it had long been demanding: this was the price which the Greeks had to pay, but it was widely regarded as a betrayal…. This was to be a lasting “common peace” for all the Greeks … and in that respect it differed from earlier treaties which simply made peace for a specified period between states which had been at war.
However, Rhodes then concedes that the matter was far more complicated. There is enough evidence to show that this peace treaty was often breached and renewed.
It is within this context of the post-386 B.C.E. era that, according to Rhodes, the Peace of Callias was ‘invented’. The point that Rhodes is making is therefore that,
40
treaty not to doubt its existence. Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669 665
although one cannot state for certain that a peace treaty between Athens and Persia was established in 449 B.C.E., one can be confident in stating that the idea of such a treaty, as a projection into the past, was a reality in the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. (which is also the most likely time when the Chronicler constructed his his- tory). This point will be picked up again in my synthesis. But let me move first to an- other aspect of the international scene that could also be considered in this discussion.
What was the situation like on the other side of the coin, namely in the Persian Em- pire? Josef Wiesehöfer gives prominence to the idea of a Pax Achaemenidica in his description of Persian rule (a term which he coined by analogy with the well-known Pax Romanum of a later era). He uses this term to refer to the royal ideology of the peace and harmony that were apparently striven for in the Achaemenid Empire. He (2006:50) defines Pax Achaemenidica as follows: ‘der reichsweiten Friedensordnung, ein Abbild der kosmischen Ordnung Auramazdas.’ Wiesehöfer finds textual confir- mation of this ideology in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions as well as iconographic confirmation in the reliefs in residence buildings and on tombs. With reference to Per- sepolis, Wiesehöfer remarks that this city was more than just a residence and admin- istrative centre. In all its inscriptions, reliefs and architecture it expressed the royal idea of a pax Achaemenidica. 41
Wiesehöfer is, of course, well aware of the fact that this ideological account of the Achaemenid dispensation should not be accepted at face value as a true reflection of the imperial rule of the time. His awareness in this regard should be taken into con- sideration in our evaluation of the sources. There were two sides to the Pax Achae-
41
von Dareios befohlen worden war und in dem sich vor allem Xerxes I. und sein Sohn Artaxerxes I. ein Denkmal setzten ...., war dabei nicht nur Residenz und Verwaltungszentrum, sondern auch ein Platz, an dem, in Inschriften, Reliefs und Architektur, in besonderer Weise die königliche Idee von der pax Achaemenidica, der göttlich geschenkten, von den Königen garantierten und den Untertanen gewünschten universellen Friedensordnung, zum Ausdruck kommt. Die in den Inschriften erwähnten und auf den Reliefs abgebildeten gabenbringenden Völkerschaften, die sich zu Banketten versammelnden und auf herrscherlichen Gunsterweis hoffenden Würdenträger, die die Sicherheit des Königs und des Reiches garantierenden Leibwächter und Soldaten und nicht zuletzt der gerechte Herrscher „von Gottes Gnaden“ selbst – sie alle werden als Teilnehmer an Zeremonien vorgestellt, die das Zusammenwirken von König und Untertanen zu beiderseitigem Nutzen symbolisieren.’ 666 Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669
sian Empire, 42 there are also other perspectives on how this pax was established and maintained. Wiesehöfer (nd:8) puts it as follows: It may be an indication of long periods of internal and external security and of the advantages of peace for the king's subjects. At the same time, how- ever, it may be a kind of deathly quiet after the suppression of a rebellion. With a stick and a carrot, Persian kings dealt with their subjects and their neighbours; an astonishing amount of local autonomy and structural tole- rance and a strong authority in and firm control from the centre are signs of the double-edged Persian policy. Whatever the real-life manifestations of the royal ideology of a Pax Achaemenidica might have been, the idea of such a notion (and its physical manifestations in litera- ture and architecture) can reasonably be assumed to have been known throughout the Achaemenid Empire of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., an empire of which Ye- hud was a small province.
Regarding the Chronicler's portrayal of Solomon, the king of peace, could one assume that the Chronicler engaged in a wider discourse with his particular version of the Judahite history? One can never know for sure. I am fully aware of the difficulties and risks involved in oversimplifying the literary relationships and thematic similarities between biblical literature and literature from the Umwelt. However, I am of the opinion that the following points should at least be taken into consideration in the fu- ture scholarship on Chronicles. The synthesis of my argument is offered here with the hope that it might stimulate serious discussion on an aspect in Chronicles scholarship that has in my opinion been neglected. 1 We have seen above that (at least) the second half of the fifth century BCE, as well as the first half of the fourth, was characterised by several discussions in Persia and Greece on the notion of peace and rest. Yet we know for sure that the discourse on peace often did not prevent the Greek and Persian nations from engaging in serious battles and wars with one another. We also know from our source that this discourse did not establish a world within which in- ternal strife no longer prevailed. However, we have enough sources (literary and archaeological) to convince us that peace was an often-pursued notion during this era. 2 We have also indicated that there is enough evidence of a fairly widespread communication system which connected the different regions of the Mediterra-
42
standing of the Great King and the provincial elites, the slavish subservience of the royal subjects and on recurrent rebellions of subject peoples or high functionaries.’ Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669 667
nean and Mesopotamian worlds with one another. One may therefore assume that this discourse on peace might have become known throughout the region. 3 It is commonly accepted in Chronicles scholarship nowadays that the book was written by Jerusalemite literati, who were knowledgeable about their wider socio-political context. 4 Although some
Chronicles scholars would date the book well into the Hellenis- tic period, there is general agreement that the most likely time of origin should be sought in the final years of the Persian Empire, namely in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E.. This view therefore establishes the chronological proxi- mity of Chronicles to the wider discourse on peace in the Greek and Persian spheres. 5 One can accept the general view in Chronicles scholarship that the book was primarily addressed to an inner-Yehudite audience, and that it contributed to an inner-Yehudite discourse. However, that does not exclude the possibility that resonances of the wider international context can be found in Chronicles. 6 It is possible to find an explanation for the Chronicler's adaptation of the Deuteronomistic History version of Solomon's narrative in the wider interna- tional context. It might well be that the Chronicler had the wider international discourse on peace in his mind when he transformed Solomon into the king of peace and the man of rest. In this way the Chronicler probably indicated that the king of peace should be sought in their own Judahite past and not in the wider international context. The house of rest was to be found in Jerusalem and not in Persepolis. Above all, the Giver of Peace is Yahweh of Judah, and not Ahuramazda of Persia. 7 This peace rhetoric as part of the Solomon narrative was in all likelihood in- cluded by the Chronicler also in some of the other royal narratives (as we have seen above) to indicate that there are numerous examples in their own Judahite history providing precedents that seeking Yahweh and relying on him bring peace, rest and quiet from the enemies all around. BIBLIOGRAPHY Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Dirksen, P. B. 1996. Why was David disqualified as temple builder? The meaning of 1 Chronicles 22.8, JSOT 70, 51-56. Dirksen, P. B. 2005. 1 Chronicles. Leuven: Peeters. Gabriel, I. 1990. Friede über Israel. Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I
Gerstenberger, E. S. 2005. Israel in der Perserzeit. 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
668 Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669
Grabbe, L. L. 2004. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark. Hoglund, K. G. 1997. The Chronicler as Historian: A comparativist approach, in: Graham, M.P. et al (eds.) The Chronicler as Historian. JSOTSup 238, 19-29. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
Japhet, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Jonker, L. C. 2002. Completing the temple with Josiah's Passover?, Old Testament Essays 15/2, 381-397. ___________ 2003a. Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles. Late stages of the Josiah Re- ception in 2 Chr 34f. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. ___________ 2003b. The rhetorics of finding a new identity in a multi-cultural and multi- religious society. Verbum et Ecclesia 24/2, 396-416. ___________ 2006. The Cushites in the Chronicler's version of Asa's Reign: A Secondary Audience in Chronicles? Old Testament Essays 19/3, 863-881. ___________ 2007a. The Exile as Sabbath Rest: The Chronicler's Interpretation of the Exile, Old Testament Essays 20/3, 703-719. ___________ 2007b. Refocusing the battle accounts of the kings: Identity formation in the Books of Chronicles, in: Ruwe, A et al (eds.) Behutsames Lesen. Alttestamentliche
Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. ___________ 2007c. Reforming history: The hermeneutical significance of the Books of Chronicles. Vetus Testamentum 57/1, 21-44. ___________ 2008. Textual identities in the Books of Chronicles: The case of Jehoram's his- tory, To be published in: Knoppers, G.N. & Ristau, K. (eds..) Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Winona Lake: Eisen- brauns.
___________ 2009. Who Constitutes Society? Yehud's Self-Understanding in the Late Persian Era as reflected in The Books of Chronicles, To be published in Journal of Biblical Literature. Kalimi, I. 1997. Was the Chronicler a Historian?, in: Graham, M.P. et al (eds.) The Chroni- cler as Historian. JSOTSup 238, 73-89. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Kelly, B. E. 1998. David's disqualification in 1 Chronicles 22.8: A response to Piet B Dirksen, JSOT 80, 53-61. Klein, R. W. 2006. 1 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Knoppers, G. N. 2003a. Greek historiography and the Chronicler's history: A reexamination,
___________ 2003b. 1 Chronicles 1-9. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. ___________ 2004. 1 Chronicles 10-29. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Koehler, L & Baumgartner, W. et al. 2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (CD-Rom Edition). Leiden: Brill. Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire. Volume I. New York: Routledge. McKenzie, S. L. 2004. 1-2 Chronicles. Abingdon OT Commentary. Nashville: John Knox Press.
Murray, D. F. 2001. Under Yhwh's Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles, Biblica 82, 457-476. Rhodes, P. J.2006. A History of the Classical Greek World 478-323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669 669
Ruffing, A. 1992. Jahwekrieg als Weltmetapher. Studien zu Jahwekriegstexten des chro- nistischen Sondergutes. Stuttgart: Verlag Kath. Bibelwerk. Steins, G. 2005. Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik. Weinheim: Beltz, Athenäum. Swanson, J. 1997. A Dictionary of Biblical Languages. Hebrew (Old Testament). Logos Re- search Systems, Inc. Tuell, S. S. 2001. First and Second Chronicles. Louisville: John Knox Press. Wiesehöfer, J. 2005. Das antike Persien. Düsseldorf: Albatros Verlag. Wiesehöfer, J. 2006. Das frühe Persien. Geschichte eines antiken Weltreichs. (Dritte Auf- lage.. München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Wiesehöfer, J. nd. The Persian Empire. Unpublished paper. ( http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsshi.stanf ord.edu%2FConferences%2F1999-2000%2Fempires%2Fwiesehoefer.pdf&images=yes
– Accessed 19 August 2008). Willi, T. 2002. “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an Chronik und Esra-Nehemia”, Theologische Rundschau 67, 61-104.
Louis C. Jonker, Department Old & New Testament, University of Stellenbosch, Stellen- bosch 7600, South Africa. E-mail: lcj@sun.ac.za Yüklə 221,4 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|