Motyer observes that “many see the detailed prediction of the personal name of Cyrus in 44:28 as a problem”.[1] It is a dividing line between critical and conservative commentators with each side showing equal conviction. Critical scholars insist that the prophet must have known of Cyrus’ early career and therefore be a contemporary; conservatives cite the “precedent” of Josiah (1 Kgs 13:2) and affirm their belief in divine inspiration as the explanation for Isaiah naming Cyrus. This article examines this question without recourse to but consistent with the explanation of “divine inspiration” using only the historico-critical method.
The problem here is that both types of commentator read the Cyrus material with the hindsight of history and infuse the oracle with an historical intention centred on the events of 538. The prior question is whether the geo-political situation of Isaiah’s day was such that it was possible for him to nominate a future liberator called Cyrus. We have no oracle introducing Cyrus; Isa 44:28 and 45:1 presuppose such introductory knowledge. Scholars have argued that Isa 41:2, 25 is such an introduction, but we have argued in a previous article that that these texts relate to Hezekiah.[2] Accordingly, we have no record like, “A king will arise whose name will be Cyrus”. Our data is therefore a sample of the message. Could the Isaiah of the eighth century make such a prediction of a named individual?
The first point to establish is whether Isaiah would have prophesied about Anshan/Parsumash, a southern province of the Elamite Empire, and the geographical location of a future Persian named Cyrus. If Isaiah prophesied the rise of a conqueror who would confront Assyria, it is not implausible that he would choose Elam, neither is it unlikely that he would choose the southern part of the Elamite Empire and the junior partner of that alliance. Elam was the traditional ally of Babylon against Assyria, and Sennacherib’s campaigns refer to “Parsuas” and “Anzan” as confederate with Elam and Babylon during his eighth campaign.[3] The southern areas of Mesopotamia were always more trouble to the Assyrian kings. It is not implausible that Isaiah would prophesy a role for Anshan/Parsumash in the plan of God for his people.
The next question is how Isaiah might have picked out the name “Cyrus”. The name “Cyrus” is typically Persian (Kūrush) and it may be a throne name[4] for rulers in Anshan/Parsumash at least as early as 646.[5] A text, from the thirtieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, has Kūrush paying tribute after the fall of Susa (the Elamite capital) in 646. The identification of this Kūrush is disputed, with some scholars willing to equate him with Cyrus I and date the start of his reign and this inscription and the fall of Susa to 640,[6] while others regard 646 (another date for the fall of Susa) as too early for Cyrus I (who is also dated to 620-590) to be the ruler of Anshan/Parsumash. In this case, “Kūrush” would be another name for Teispes, the father of Cyrus I, and this possibility is important for assessing the plausibility of Isaiah making a prediction about Cyrus, as Teispes might have well been around as a young man in Isaiah’s day.
Throne-naming continued with Cyrus II (559-530), and after him the name of “Cyrus” continued to be used, but not as a throne name. Artaxerxes I originally bore the personal name of “Cyrus”,[7] before taking the throne name of “Artaxerxes”,[8] and Artaxerxes’ grandson was named “Cyrus”, although he only rose to the position of Satrap.[9]
It cannot be proved that “Cyrus” was a throne name for Cyrus I and II; it could have been their personal name. Evidence for any personal names or the changing of names upon accession is lacking; however, the suggestion is not implausible. The evidence for throne names is only available for the later Achaemenids. Thus, as noted, Artaxerxes I was originally named “Cyrus”; Artaxerxes II had the private name of “Arsaces”; Artaxerxes III was originally named “Ochus”; and Artaxerxes IV was personally called “Bessus”. A comparable pattern of throne-naming is seen in the Darius series of Achaemenid kings: the personal name of Darius I is lost, but Darius II was originally called “Ochus” and Darius III was called “Artasat”.[10]
The evidence therefore suggests that “Cyrus” could be a throne name[11] from the early Achaemenid royal house, which changed when Darius I succeeded the son of Cyrus II. The Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus, offers the reason for the later choice of the Artaxerxes’ throne name, “Since Artaxerxes had been a good king and had been quite peaceful and fortunate, they [the Persians] renamed all kings ruling after him and ordered them to bear his name”.[12] R. Schmitt offers the analysis that “Artaxerxes” carried the meaning “whose reign (or rule) is from (or: through) Rta, the Truth” and “Darius” carries the meaning “holding firm (or: retaining) the good”, and that these “names unmistakeably express a religious-political program or motto”.[13] Darius I was the first king after Cyrus II and Schmitt postulates that the Achaemenid throne name was changed to “Darius” to express the motto of “holding the empire together”.
In 700, the Achaemenid dynasty was just beginning with Achaemenes, and the region of Anshan would have been perceived as an active part of the Elamite Empire, traditional enemies of Assyria and traditional allies to Babylon. The house would have been perceived in terms of the minor nobility of Elam, the junior governing partner in the Elamite alliance.[14] It is not implausible to suppose that Isaiah would have nominated a future liberator from Assyrian dominance[15] using a throne name from this region. Achaemenes may have had such a personal name, and as we have noted, there is evidence to suggest his son (Teispes, 675-640) did have this name. If we treat Isaiah’s oracle as primary evidence, then it is either evidence that “Cyrus” was a personal name for Achaemenes or a prognostication about Teispes who might have been a young prince at the time. With this latter possibility, “Cyrus” is not a throne-name but a personal name that became a throne name for Cyrus I and II.
It might be thought unlikely that Isaiah would have had knowledge of the politics of Elam and Anshan. However, the opposite supposition is more plausible. The geo-politics associated with the rise of Assyria would be known at the Jerusalem court and Isaiah was associated with the court. Moreover, given that Babylon and Elam were the natural allies against Assyria, the Babylonian envoys no doubt brought Hezekiah up-to-date with the politics of such an alliance while seeking his support in the west. It is entirely possible that the Babylonian envoys mentioned recent agreements with the Anshan royal house, and if “Cyrus” was a name of Achaemenes, and/or if Teispes was a young man waiting in the wings, then this would explain the mention of a “Cyrus” by Isaiah. It is also possible that Teispes was a delegate with the envoys. Isaiah could have used the very rhetoric of the Babylonian envoys in their “talking up” of the alliance with Elam to castigate Hezekiah. Such a mention would then be an irony directed at Hezekiah. His succumbing to such persuasion by the envoys was turned by Isaiah so that such a “Cyrus” is then appointed to be the one who would re-build Jerusalem rather than Hezekiah.
Historical reconstruction on the basis of single inscriptions is sound method provided that the evidence is cited and its uniqueness noted. The single inscription from the time of the sacking of Susa is evidence for Teispes bearing the name of “Cyrus”. Isaiah’s mention of “Cyrus” is equivalent to inscriptional evidence and could be taken to confirm the inscription from the time of the battle of Susa, or it could be unique evidence for Achaemenes being named “Cyrus”.
Our conclusion therefore is that an Elamite-focused prophecy using a Persian personal name is a plausible prognostication by Isaiah in 700; moreover, it is plausible that Isaiah’s mention of the name arose from the rhetoric of the Babylonian envoys. Isaiah is not therefore imagining Cyrus the Great and picking out an individual from the ether a hundred and fifty years down the road. The inspiration of his oracle lies in the use of contemporary information which because of throne-naming allows a future application. This fits the character of prophetic inspiration where the terms of prophecies emerge out of the immediate circumstances but their ambiguity is such that their application may be one or more generations down the road. The mistake that conservative and critical scholars make alike is to suppose that the reference of “Cyrus” on the lips of Isaiah has to be about Cyrus the Great because he was the one to “fulfil” the terms of the prediction. However, at the time of the oracle, the reference is ambiguous and could have been satisfied by one of many kings of Persia. As it happened the plan of God was worked out in respect of Cyrus the Great.
One final thought is worth stating. Schmitt’s proposal that Achaemenid throne names are chosen for ideological reasons also raises the possibility the early Achaemenids became aware of Isaiah’s prophecy and that it motivated the choice of “Cyrus” as a throne-name for the early Achaemenids.[16]
[1] J. A. Motyer, Isaiah (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 284.
[2] A. Perry, “Demarcating Prophetic Oracles” CeJBI Jan (2008).
[3] The Annals of Sennacherib (ed., D. D. Luckenbill; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 88.
[4] The practise of taking throne names upon accession was widespread in the Ancient Near East.
[5] On this date see M. Brosius, The Persians (London: Routledge, 2006), 7.
[6] E. M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 71, notes the text, which describes the Assyrian conquest of Elam as a “flood”.
[7] R. Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names” Annali Dell’Instituto Orientali Di Napoli 42 (1982): 83-95, discusses the dynastic names of the later Achaemenids.
[8] Josephus, Ant. 11, 6.1
[9] J. Oates, Babylon (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 139.
[10] The evidence is tabulated in Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names”, 92.
[11] The etymology of ‘Cyrus’ is uncertain, see Yamauchi, Persia, 72.
[12] Diodorus of Sicily, (LCL; trans. C. H. Oldfather; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), XV, 93, 1.
[13] Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne Names”, 93.
[14] Brosius, Persians, 6.
[15] In 700, it was more likely that Assyria would renew their campaign against Judah and that they would deport the royal house to Babylon. Isaiah’s prediction in Isaiah 39 does not state who would deport the royal house, and in 700 the throne of Babylon was Assyrian.
[16] This presumes dissemination of Isaiah’s prophecies amongst scattered communities of Israelites in Elam (cf. Isa 11:11), which is supported by Josephus, Ant. 11, 5.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One