Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego

Lisbeth S. Fried’s insightful study investigates the impact of Achaemenid rule on the political power of local priesthoods during the 6th–4th centuries B.C.E. Scholars typically assume that, as long as tribute was sent to Susa, the capital of the Achaemenid Empire, subject peoples remained autonomous. Fried’s work challenges this assumption. She examines the inscriptions, coins, temple archives, and literary texts from Babylon, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Judah and concludes that there was no local autonomy. The only people with power in the Empire were Persians and their appointees. This was true for Judah as well. The High Priest had no real power; there was no theocracy. The wars that periodically engulfed the Levant in the fourth century temporarily pulled the ruling governors and satraps away from Judah, and during these times, the Judean priesthood may have capitalized on the brief absence of Persian officials to mint coins, but they achieved their longed-for independence only much later, under the Maccabees.

Liz added this explanatory note in an e-mail to the Biblical Studies e-mail list on December 2, 2005:

“There’s a confusion in reader’s minds about my methodology, which I’d like to set straight if I may.

“The book is a rewrite of my dissertation. My dissertation was entitled The Rise to Power of the Judean Priesthood: The Impact of the Achaemenid Empire. I assumed at the outset that because the Achaemenid Empire was non-directive, and cared only that tribute would be sent regularly, the priesthood was able to fill the resulting power vacuum and achieve secular power. My goal was to chronicle the process. In addition I thought to look at Eisenstadt’s model which predicted the opposite result—that local elites, like priests, could not rise to power in an imperial system. Since there was no real data from Judah, I looked at temple-palace relations in Babylon, Egypt, and Asia Minor as well as Judah.

“It was only during my research that I came to the conclusion that local priesthoods did not achieve secular power anywhere in the Achaemenid Empire and certainly not in Judah. In fact their power diminished during those 200 years. I also concluded, not that Eisenstadt was correct, but only that my data were insufficient to reject his model. However, my data were sufficient to reject the model of an Achaemenid Empire that was non-directive as well as the model of Persian authorization of local norms (Frei and Koch).”

For the past half-century, David Noel Freedman has had an enormous impact on the study of the Bible, both as an author and as an editor of the writings of others. As his colleagues note in their comments at the beginning of this volume, “You are quintessentially the man of the book. And perhaps what impresses us most is that your bibliography of hundreds of books is not limited to the extraordinary number of important books that you’ve written yourself. It also contains the books that you’ve edited for others. And we know what it means to have David Noel Freedman as one’s editor. For every page of manuscript that the author sends you, you send back almost an equal number of pages of advice, criticism, corrections, and improvements. You can make a bad book good, and a good book better. And you can make its author a better scholar and a better writer.” In this volume, his compatriots at the University of California, San Diego, contribute eight varied essays in celebration of his impact on them and in honor of his varied contributions to biblical studies.

In this comprehensive study of a common deity found in the ancient Near East as well as many other cultures, Green brings together evidence from the worlds of myth, iconography, and literature in an attempt to arrive at a new synthesis regarding the place of the Storm-god. He finds that the Storm-god was the force primarily responsible for three major areas of human concern: (1) religious power because he was the ever-dominant environmental force upon which peoples depended for their very lives; (2) centralized political power; and (3) continuously evolving sociocultural processes, which typically were projected through the Storm-god’s attendants. Green traces these motifs through the Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Syrian, and Levantine regions; with regard to the latter, he argues that Yahweh of the Bible can be identified as a storm-god, though certain unique characteristics came to be associated with him: he was the Creator of all that is created and the self-existing god who needs no other.

With the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the exile of members of the Israelite community to the land of its enemies, whose gods were represented as divine statues, the prophet Ezekiel faced a challenge: how to respond to the enemies’ taunts that Israel’s God was absent, whereas the foreigners’ gods self-evidently were present. Thus, to ask the question, “Where is God” was to face several complex and tangled problems. How is God to be represented? How is Yahweh to be differentiated from other deities? What is Yahweh’s relationship to Israel in exile?

Kutsko sets out to answer these questions within the theme of divine presence and absence, particularly as it relates to the kabod theology in Ezekiel. He shows that God’s absence becomes, for Ezekiel, an argument for his presence and power, while the presence of idols indicated their absence and impotence. Ezekiel extends this proposition into a corollary: God’s presence is not consigned to sanctuary, for God is a sanctuary. In this regard, absence from the Temple is a message of judgment and the precursor to a message of restoration. If God can become a sanctuary, his presence in exile becomes a message of victory even over imperial powers. This conceptualization of Yahweh, then, ends up defining the power and position of Israel’s God in distinctively universal terms. In this contribution, the book of Ezekiel plays a central and previously unappreciated role in the development of Israelite theology, and monotheism in particular.

From the Preface: “The alphabetic acrostic is one of the most easily identifiable poetic forms in the Hebrew Bible. Examples can be found in prophetic discourse (Nahum), the lament over the destruction of Jerusalem (Lamentations), liturgical song (Psalms), and wisdom literature (Proverbs). Yet its very obviousness has tended to deflect deeper exploration of its structure and purpose. Since Mowinckel denigrated the acrostics in the Psalms as a “disintegration of style,’ too often scholars have simply noted and then ignored the form.

“There is no a priori reason that alphabetic acrostics should be less creative, expressive, or complex than other psalms. Thus the essays collected here investigate the acrostic format as a legitimate option for Israelite poets rather than as the refuge of uninspired epigones....The fruit of over twenty years’ close reading of these psalms, the following essays reveal the poets’ consummate mastery of the demanding acrostic form and deserve incorporation in future discussions of biblical poetic art.