Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Media and Persia in Scripture.

The Bible contains a number of references to Media and Persia, which, considered as a whole, paint a coherent picture.

(1). The Bible’s first reference to Media is found in 2 Kgs. 18.11.

In 2 Kgs. 18, the Israelites are said to be exiled (by Assyria) and resettled in three places:

a] ‘in Halah’,

b] ‘on the Habor, viz. the Gozan river’,

and c] ‘in the cities of the Medes’.

Apparently, ‘Halah’ (חלח) refers to ancient Ḫalaḫḫu = modern-day Khorsabad (in Iraq),

‘the Habor’ (החבור) refers to the river now known as Al-Khabur (which runs from Turkey down to N. Syria), in which case the phrase ‘in the Habor’ (בחבור) may refer to its basin,

and ‘the river Gozan’ (נהר גוזן) is connected to the ancient city-state Guzanu = modern-day Tell Halaf (in NE Syria, near the Turkish border).

Note: Ran Zadok has identified the names of Israelites in documents from each of these areas (cp. ‘Israelites and Judaeans in the Neo-Assyrian Documentation’ 2015).

2 Kgs. 18’s reference to ‘cities of the Medes’ presumably, therefore, denotes somewhere around the border between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq,

as one would expect.

(2). In the book of Isaiah, God says he will ‘stir up the Medes’ against the Babylonians (Isa. 13).

A few chapters later, he commands Elam to ‘go up’ against Babylon, and Media to ‘lay siege’ to Babylon (cp. Isa. 21.2 w. 21.9).

Isaiah therefore seems to envisage an allied Medo-Elamite attack against Babylon, perhaps 689 BC’s (in which Babylon’s idols were smashed, per Isa. 21.9).

(3). In the book of Jeremiah, God says he will ‘stir up the spirit of the kings of the Medes’--together with ‘their governors and deputies, and every land under their dominion’--against Babylon (51.11, 28).

Like Isaiah, then, Jeremiah envisages a Media-led attack against Babylon, though the attack in question must postdate 689 BC, so is most likely 539 BC’s.

Who is included in Jeremiah’s reference to ‘the Medes and their governors, deputies, etc.’ is hard to say,

but the term ‘Mede’ clearly can be employed in a broad sense.

In Safaitic inscriptions, it is synonymous with ‘Persia’:

https://twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1213832321083805696

And it appears to have a similar sense in the Harran Stele (a text commissioned by Nabonidus shortly before Babylon’s fall: Beaulieu 1989:32),

where Babylon’s main threats are listed as the kings of ‘Egypt’, ‘the city of the Medes’, and ‘the land of the Arabs’. (No mention is made of a king of Anshan/Persia.)

(4). In Daniel, a Medo-Persian alliance is said to conquer Babylon (5.28).

Its first mentioned king is a Mede (Darius: 5.31), and its second is a Persian (Cyrus: 6.28).

Over time, the Persian ‘horn’ of the empire grows in influence until it comes to dominate it (8.3, 20), hence the empire can be referred to simply as ‘Persia’ (10.13).

(5). The books of Ezra and Esther are consistent with Daniel’s notion of an allied empire whose roots lie in Media, yet which later comes to be dominated by its Persian contingent.

In Ezra, Cyrus is referred to as ‘the king of Persia’,

while his documents are stored/archived in the province of Media (in Ecbatana: 6.2).

And, in Esther, the empire’s history books are referred to as the Chronicles of ‘Media and Persia’ (10.2),

while the army of the day is referred to as ‘the army of Persia and Media’ (1.3 cp. 14, 18, etc.), i.e., with the order of the Gentilics ‘Media’ and ‘Persia’ reversed.

------------

Note: That the Medes retained their identity in the Medo-Persian alliance is corroborated by extra-Biblical sources.

5th cent. stairway reliefs at Persepolis portray Persian and Median nobles, apparently as equals (Yamauchi 1990:347, 351).

Greek writers such as Xenophon and Thucydides occasionally refer to ‘the Persians and Medes’ rather than simply ‘the Persians’ (e.g., Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War 1.104.2, Xenophon’s Anabasis 3.2.25).

And, as late as the 4th cent., Alexander the Great refers to the troops of Darius III as ‘Medes and Persians’ (Anabasis Alexandri in Arrian II.7).

------------

True, not *everything* the Bible has to say about Media and Persia is straightforward to reconcile with history (most notably Daniel’s reference to ‘Darius the Mede’),

but the overall picture painted is a coherent and historically credible one.

As a result, the Bible’s more awkward references to Medo-Persian history deserve to be taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand.

THE END.