Persia and the Bible [Paperback]

I got this book in hopes of learning more about the influence that ancient Persian culture (e.g., Zoroastrianism) may have had on postexilic Judaism -- unfortunately, I was quickly disappointed.

While the author does a decent job of covering ancient Persian history, a surprisingly small portion of the book is actually devoted to discussing what religious/philosophical views may have passed from Persian culture into Judaism, and therefore the Bible. I was especially surprised at how sparse the (-single-) chapter on Zoroastrianism was!

Since this book does not thoroughly address the subject that most people would be getting it for, based on its title, I wouldn't recommend spending money on it. It's a shame too. This is a very important topic and there is a real deficiency of serious books on the subject... I can only hope that someone will soon produce a book that does it justice.

If one is working on exegesis or interpretation of the Biblical books of Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra, or on the later parts of Kings and Chronicles (or something around the captivity and beyond..like Isaiah or Jeremiah), this book is a definite "must have" for growing in your understanding of the Medes and Persians and their role in biblical history.

Without simply giving a lengthy summary of the entire book, it simply looks at the people, places and religious context of the Medes and Persians in the ANE:

The book is roughly broken into 3 sections, with the first section examining the life and events associated around Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, utilizing a full range of archeological and textual historical sources (including the Bible) to build a credible understanding of these individuals.

The second section is a treatment of the places Susa, Exbatana, Parsargadae and Persepolis. The examination of these places happens in like manner to the previously addressed persons.

The third section examines Persia's interaction with the Greek empire, Zoroastrianism, the identification of the Magi and Mithraism.

Yamauchi's work is extremely scholarly, exemplifying a man who is an obvious expert in both the languages and historical sources in his respective field (a Christian who teaches at a secular institution and writes this kind of work HAS to be exceedingly competent). It's a far cry from much of the 'MA/PhD writing outside his area of expertise' historical/biblical hack-and-slash work that is popularly cited on many internet sources. Yamauchi actually reads the source works, knows the languages, teaches on these subjects in the academy and has studied these things to the point of being able to write authoritatively...and it comes out. I absolutely LOVED 'Persia and the Bible'; I've rarely had an academic book of this nature accompany me to both work and bed.

Yamauchi writes as a 'no excuses' Christian scholar, working with a Bible that he considers to be a reputable historical source that can sit alongside, and often above, other less historically substantiated works. He also deals with many of the Biblical "problems" associated with the subject matter (like the identity of Darius the Mede, the question of Greek loan words in Daniel, the supposed influence of Zoroastrianism and/or Mithraism on early Judaism, the Magi's appearance at Christ's Birth, etc.) and comes out with very well documented and coherent defenses of his position, most of which are thoroughly supportive of the Biblical record.

I would actually like to see Yamauchi address much more of the desperate revisionist history and militant atheist hack-and-slash-jobs on some of these subjects (like Mithraic influence on Judaism/Christianity), but he's not an apologist. Interestingly though, a guy who is a renowned expert on this stuff essentially dismisses such ideas as "overvalued" (466) and says straightly "Most scholars conclude that Mithraism, which developed at the earliest late in the first century A.D., could not have influence nascent Christianity" (518).

Because of the historical helps to exegesis, the proposed solutions to various interpretive/problem issues, the wonderful pictures of places and artifacts, the decent writing style, the meticulous and painstaking scholarship and the apologetic assistance against much of the "internet intelligencia" that have somehow duped much of the adolescent world into believing that "Wikipedia is an acceptable substitute for a brain", "Persia and the Bible" is on the top of the "must have" book list.

HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommended. Fantastic work.

Edwin Yamaucht is true to his usual excellence in delivering to the lay reader an intelligent and thoroughly researched treatise of a highly academic topic. Those who would disapprove of this book seem to be incensed that it is not written with the slant or emphasis that they desire. The book's success lies in the fact that it is not another tendentious portrayal of some assumed relationship between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Such a relationship will likely never be scientifically proven, and therefore does not deserve a place among critical scholastic works. Nor does Dr. Yamaucht's book seek to advance this or that theory on biblical authorship or some other such spurious conjecture.

The primary aim of the work is to describe the nation of Persia of the biblical era, focusing almost exclusively on the Archaemenid kings of the late biblical period with which the vast majority of Persia-focused biblical literature concerns itself. The method of description is basically historical, with most of the chapters of the book devoted to one particular Archaemenid king, or a particular Persian city described mainly as it existed in the Archaemenid period. There are final chapters on Zoroastrianism, the Magi, and Mithraism that are intended to give a basic introduction to these subjects that are often of interest to the biblical enthusiasts. Though these final chapters are extensive and thorough, anyone desiring more on these subjects would be best advised to buy books devoted exclusively to them.

As a historian, Dr. Yamaucht makes extensive use of biblical and Greek sources, though he refers consistently to the occasional Syriac source as well. Dr. Yamaucht's choice of sources is certainly the result of their higher quality as historical references. One of the most impressive qualities of his treatement is a near complete lack of bias concerning the bible. If one pays close attention, one might be able to discern a secular perspective, but Dr. Yamaucht treats the bible as the excellent source of history that it is, and the book should be entirely inoffensive to religious or secular readers, excepting perhaps those minimalist readers who dare not challenge their fabulous impression of the bible as a grand deception.

My hat is off to Edwin Yamaucht for his achievement. His writing is intelligent, yet clear and concise, and he has truly succeeded in informing the lay reader about what the sources have to say about the Persian empire that they have read about in the bible.