Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch

Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of Pentateuch, edited by James W. Watts. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Pp. 228. 39. 95 (paper). Peter Frei's theory of authorization of local legislation opened up to biblical scholars a fascinating line of inquiry with regard to origins of Pentateuch. Frei sought to demonstrate that phenomenon of imperial whereby legislation proposed by a local authority within empire was endorsed by central government to point of being taken up as law, was attested more or less strongly in a wide variety of ancient texts. These texts included biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Frei's contention that mission of Ezra related to an authorization of laws Ezra was commissioned to enforce spurred scholars like Erhard Blum, Frank Crusemann, Joseph Blenkinsopp, and others to link composition of Pentateuch to legal initiatives in Yehud. The essays in this volume assess, in various ways, Frei's thesis itself, its applicability (if any) to Ezra's mission, and relationship of these to origins of Pentateuch. The volume opens with a new English translation of Peter Frei's 1995 essay Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary. Here is a straightforward presentation of evidence that Frei believes support his thesis. This summary is a helpful introduction to those unfamiliar with theory, a helpful review for those already familiar with theory, and an indispensable summary for those whose access to Frei's original presentation of his thesis is limited. This essay consists mostly of a survey of documents that seem, to Frei, serviceable as potential examples of or witnesses to instances of such authorization. It should be noted that Frei's thesis is not itself an attempt to explain origins of Pentateuch; rather, Frei takes Ezra traditions as evidence of process of authorization. Joseph Blenkinsopp answers his title question, Was Pentateuch Constitution of Jewish Ethnos? , with a resounding Maybe. Blenkinsopp argues that legal terminology used in biblical books of Daniel, Esther, and Ezra-regardless of historicity of events narrated in those books-is consistent with usage attested elsewhere. On Blenkinsopp's analysis, any legal enactments anywhere within empire could be appropriately labeled the law of king, as in Ezra tradition. Among evidence adduced by Frei for authorization, Blenkinsopp focuses most of his attention on Demotic Chronicle and its account of activities of Udjahorresne. Certain analogies can be drawn between those activities and activities of Ezra and Nehemiah as pictured in Ezra-Nehemiah, suggesting that authorities might have undertaken a program in Yehud similar to that undertaken in Egypt under Darius I. Ultimately, Blenkinsopp does conclude that Ezra's mission was to enforce Jewish law with force of law among Jews in Trans-Euphrates. Blenkinsopp further shows that Ezra-Nehemiah is familiar with both Deuteronomic and Priestly laws, though from what sources and in precisely what forms cannot be known. Moreover, some of Ezra's and Nehemiah's impositions correspond to no known pentateuchal regulations, or even contradict pentateuchal legislation. Thus legal contents of Pentateuch might have been, but cannot be conclusively shown to have been, bound by authority on Jews of Trans-Euphratene. In any event, Blenkinsopp suggests, this would not precisely be a case of Frei's authorization, for Frei's model requires an appeal for authorization by local authorities, which biblical materials (and, for that matter, Demotic Chronicle) do not attest. In 'You Shall Appoint Judges': Ezra's Mission and Rescript of Artaxerxes, Lisbeth Fried accepts Ezra 7: 21-26 as an authentic decree by Artaxerxes II. …