本文認為以斯拉一章對波斯王居魯士二世的慈善描繪，是一種策略性的修辭表達，旨在協調居魯士與猶大精英之間的權力張力。當我們比較Cyrus Cylinder和Nabonidus Chronicle中對居魯士的正面描寫與希羅多德的《歷史》和Xenophon的Cyropaedia對居魯士的負面描述時，這種權力拉扯的修辭顯得尤為重要。正如許多學者指出波斯人統治和管理的方法與亞述人和巴比倫人大同小異，波斯人同樣試圖通過保留既有的宗教和政治結構來穩定當地局勢，以便減少他們的行政、軍事開支和維護費用。他們與當地精英合作，剝削在地的經濟，增加稅收，入侵和擴大領土，並在必要時，殘酷地鎮壓任何叛亂。在地的精英只能選擇配合他們或被打壓。考慮到這一困境，為了防止猶太人只專注於某種呈現和表達方式，以斯拉記一章通過提到耶利米書所暗示的弔詭、有疑問的神學，以及諷刺大肆的剝削，來修飾對居魯士的稱讚。這種修辭手法體現了Michel Foucault的權力關係概念和James C. Scott的隱藏文本概念。

This paper argues that the charitable portrayal of Cyrus II in Ezra 1 is a tactical representation that aims to negotiate the power dynamics between Cyrus and the dominated Judean elites. Such a power play of rhetoric comes to the fore when we compare the positive depiction of Cyrus in the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle with the negative image of Cyrus in Herodotus' The Histories and Xenophon's Cyropaedia. As many scholars have pointed out, the Persians did not act any differently from the Assyrians and Babylonians. They sought to stabilize the local situation by retaining its existing religious and political structures so that they could minimize their expenses and maintenance. They worked with the local elites, exploited economy, increased taxes, invaded and expanded territories, and brutally crushed any rebellions if necessary. The local leadership could either cooperate or suffer at their hands. Given this predicament and to prevent the Judeans from only focusing on a certain representation, Ezra 1 qualifies the honor bestowed upon Cyrus with the allusion to Jeremiah that underscores ambivalence, questionable theology, and mocked exploitation. Such rhetorical maneuver manifests Michel Foucault's notion of power relation and James C. Scott's notion of hidden transcript.