Offprint from

Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period

Negotiating Identity in an International Context

edited by

Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2011

 2011 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid period : negotiating identity in an international context / edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. p. cm. In April, 2008, an international colloquium was held at the University of Heidelbergthe fourth convocation of a group of scholars (with some rotating members) who gathered to discuss the status of Judah and the Judeans in the exilic and postexilic periods. The goal of this gathering was specifically to address the question of national identity in the period when many now believe this very issue was in significant foment and development, the era of the Persian/Achaemenid domination of the ancient Near EastECIP summary. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-197-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Ethnicity in the BibleCongresses. 2. Group identityCongresses. 3. JewsIdentityCongresses. 4. Bible. O.T.Criticism, interpretation, etc.Congresses. 5. JewsHistory586 b.c.70 a.d.Congresses. 6. Achaemenid dynasty, 559330 b.c.Congresses. 7. Jewish diaspora Congresses. 8. Judaea (Region)Ethnic relationsCongresses. I. Lipschitz, Oded. II. Knoppers, Gary N., 1956 III. Oeming, Manfred. BS1199.E84J83 2011 220.95009014dc22 2010054514

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Surviving in an Imperial Context: Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

Jacob L. Wright
Emory University

Introduction
My decision to contribute an essay on the military to a conference and volume on Judean identity in the Persian period at first may seem rather odd. If the period of concern were Judah in the Iron Age, when a native monarchy ruled with the help of an army, one would have to assign a considerable amount of space to these subjects. Yet students of Judah and Judeans during the Achaemenid period usually focus on the institutions and practices (such as the temple, cult, language, marriage, and festivals) that came to replace the role played by the army in demarcating and protecting social and political borders. To be sure, the most significant problem related to the history of Persian-period Judah is how this society took upon itself the arduous task of rebuilding identity without their native kings and armies who figure so prominently in the memories of a more bellicose bygone era. Nevertheless, as I will attempt to show in what follows, a full appreciation of the issues attending to Judean identity in the Persian period cannot afford to neglect the role of the military. For the period of Achaemenid rule, one can distinguish broadly between two roles for Judean soldiers: one protecting imperial interests and the other protecting native interests. Although these roles are mutually dependent, they are nevertheless characterized by fundamentally different political postures. The first emphasizes allegiance to foreign powers, and the other stresses the need for a territory demarcated and defended from surrounding peoples. The duality had its origins already in time of the Iron Age Judahite kingdom; but it became a more pronounced feature of Jewish identity in the Persian period and then especially in Hellenistic and Roman times.
Authors note: This essay is dedicated to Derek Penslar.

505
O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

506

Jacob L. Wright

In Achaemenid-period Judah, the phenomenon of native soldiers fighting for their homeland cannot be completely ruled out as a historical possibility. Yet the mobilization of Judean militia with cadres of professional soldiers, as described in Nehemiah 4, would have been very uncommon. And, therefore, I here focus my attention on foreign military service. I begin by surveying the evidence of foreign military service prior to Roman rule. Thereafter, I turn to examine, along the lines of a histoire des mentalits, some of the attitudes that characterized imperial military service. If in the process I pay more attention to the sources from Ptolemaic Egypt, this is because we are much better informed about Jewish military service for this time period and region. And this later evidence is directly pertinent to the study of Achaemenid times: according to Aryeh Kasher, the Ptolemies inherited the political arrangements of their predecessors. . . . It is no wonder then that the character of military settlement, that of the Jews as well, did not change (1985: 39).

Survey of Evidence
At the outset, it is important to note that service in foreign armies does not distinguish the post-Destruction period from the earlier history of Judah. Indeed, the presence of Judahites in nonnative armies goes hand in hand with the history of the Judahite kingdom. Not only did (proto-)Judahites join the ranks of Egyptian and other foreign armies before a Judahite state emerged, but also the formation of Judahite/Judean kingdoms (in the Iron Age and during the HellenisticRoman period) is inseparable from foreign military service.1 Insofar as Judah for some part of its early history was a vassal to Israel and not solely a brother-state and ally, Judahite kings would have been required to furnish Israelian kings with men for their armies.2 Yet even as an equal ally to Israel and other states, Judahite soldiers would have fought side by side with foreign soldiers; they would have been governed either by a native commander or a foreign officer.
1. In this essay, I distinguish between Judahites from the Kingdom of Judah, Judeans from the Persian province of Yehud and the Diaspora, and Jews from the Hellenistic period. The facts on the ground would have been much more complex. Our texts of course do not distinguish between Judahites, Judeans, and Jews, which requires us to reflect with Shaye Cohen (1999) on our use of these terms; see the appendix to this essay (pp. 520522). 2. Provision of troops is one of the most common obligations in vassal treaties and the failure to send troops could result in war; see, e.g., the 10 Year Annals of Mursili II 810 and 40, and for the Neo-Assyrian Empire, see the literature cited by Yamada 2000: 3078.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

507

To provide an example, it is commonly thought that Judah was a vassal to Israel during the period of Omride rule. One of the accounts of the so-called Battle of Qarqar in Shalmaneser IIIs inscriptions (the Kurkh Monolith) mentions the presence of a large force led by Ahab. The high figures for Ahabs soldiers and chariots are ultimately inexplicable, but the relative size of these forces may be explained in part as including soldiers from Judah and his other vassals. (On this approach to the figures for Ahabs forces, see, e.g., Kelle 2002; cf., however, Niemann 2007.) If this conclusion is merited, it is significant that the Assyrian record does not enumerate the vassal armies separately.3 A clearer case of foreign military service is the presence of Judahites in the large armies of empires that ruled the Levant.4 Sennacherib claims in the so-called Rassam Cylinder that Hezekiah, upon surrender, sent his urbi and elite troops to Nineveh. (For the identity of the L urb troops, see Tadmor 1988 and Naaman 2000.) Assuming the factuality of this report, these soldiers from Judah probably would have been integrated into the ranks of imperial forces, as Sargon II claims to have done with respect to Samarian charioteers (see discussion by Dalley 1985; Fales 1991; Younger 1998; Kaplan 2008). The Lachish reliefs portray Judahite soldiers following their wives and children to their new homes; these scenes depict poignantly the (physical and mental) transition from service in native armies to fighting for the interests of the empire. Bustenay Odeds work on forced migrations shows that military conscription of deportees as a means for expanding imperial influence was a major motivation for Assyrian deportation practices. It was one of the means available for the recruitment of foreign manpower (the other two being conscription as a form of tribute from vassal states and employment of mercenaries; 1979: 50). What made deportees especially suitable for military service in the imperial armies is that the bond between the deportees and their homeland had been severed and they were often very loyal to the king (see pp. 514518 below). Deportees could serve as professional soldiers in regiments of charioteers, cavalry, infantry, shield-bearers or as personal bodyguards to the king. Many
3. Though it is not necessary to conclude that the vassal forces were fully integrated into the armies of Ahab rather than constituting individual units answering directly to native commanders, compare statements such as in the contexts of 1 Kgs 22:14 and 2 Kgs 3:47, and see Mark S. Smiths discussion (2007) of these two passages in connection to several treaty declarations. 4. One of the earliest witnesses to contingents of foreign soldiers serving in armies stems from the archives of Shamsi-Adad; see Glock 1968: 6689 and Sasson 1969: 79.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

508

Jacob L. Wright

were posted in citadels and fortresses. But, as Oded points out, a good portion of deportees serving in the military did not serve as soldiers; instead they worked in various capacities within the camps and garrisons or what we would call today logistical operations (1979: 5154). During this late monarchic period, Judahites served often in the employ of foreign armies. In the seventh century, the Assyrians created a buffer zone to Egypt by building forts and garrisons throughout the South, and here Judahite soldiers would likely have been stationed. They probably would have also fought in the ranks of Esarhaddons armies in his campaigns against Sidon and later into Egypt. The annals of Ashurbanipal (Prism C; Borger 2006: 93; ANET 294ff.) claim that Manasseh, along with 22 other kings, accompanied the Assyrians in an Egyptian campaign. Some have suggested that the Judahite/Judean soldiers inhabiting the fortress at Elephantine during fifth and fourth centuries were originally stationed there at this period (see, e.g., Kraeling 1953: 42; Porten 1968: 816; and Jer 44:1). The Letter of Aristeas (line 13) claims that Jews had been employed as soldiers in the army of Psammetichus in his war against the Ethiopians; if historical, the Saitic king could have been either Psammetichus I or II (Kahn 2008). From archaeological findings and epigraphic evidence, we know that a number of Judahite soldiers were stationed along with Aegean troops in Mezad asavyahua fortress protecting Yavneh-Yam, one of the most important harbors on the Mediterranean coast. Comparing the evidence to that from Tel Kabri, Alexander Fantalkin (2001, 2006) makes a strong case in support of Naamans (1991) earlier suggestion that the fort was Egyptian, not Judahite (cf., however, Niemeier 2002; Wenning 1989, 2001). For the Neo-Babylonian period, the biblical accounts emphasize in their descriptions of the first deportations of Judahites during the reign of Jehoiachin that Nebuchadnezzar exiled numerous Judahite officers and soldiers; according to one statement, they numbered 7,000 (all of them warriors trained for battle, 2 Kgs 24:16; cf. v. 14; Jer 29:2), along with 1,000 craftsmen and smiths. While one may dispute this number, the ratio of military to civilian artisans (7:1) is noteworthy. (For the role of foreign troops in Chaldean armies, see Wiseman 1956: 64). Because the sons of soldiers usually adopted the profession of their father,5 the descendants of these Judahite soldiers likely would have fought in imperial armies for many generations thereafter. Although the region around Medina was famous for its Jewish colonies at a later point, we do not know when they were established. Some knowledge of events
5. This general rule is confirmed by a wide range of evidence, not least the Elephantine papyri; see Portens comment (1968: 31 n. 13).

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

509

at Tayma (Tema) is indicated by the Oracle concerning Arabia in Isa 21:1317. Whether Judahites were present in Tayma and were brought there by Nabonidus on his military campaigns, as some have supposed on the basis of the so-called Oratio Nabonidi (4 QOrNab) and Daniel 4, awaits the findings of ongoing excavations at Tayma by the German Archeological Institute (see Mller and al-Said 2001; Hayajneh 2001). For the Persian period, the most important bodies of written evidence are closely related to Judeans serving in imperial armies. They originate from what would become the two centers of the Jewish Diaspora: Egypt and Babylonia. Whereas garrisons (Elephantine/Yeb) and later cleruchies predominate in Egypt, in Babylonia the Jewish communities (Murash, l-Yhdu, and lu sa Nasar) lived on lands that were part of the administrative aru system.6 This system resembles more the cleruchies in which Jews served during the Hellenistic period than garrisons such as Elephantine (for a comparison of Babylonian and Egyptian systems from the perspective of Nachbrgschaft, see San Nicol 1937; for the system itself, see Stolper 1985, Donbaz and Stolper 1997, Joanns 1990, Tuplin 1987, and Wiesehfer 1999). The aru could belong to the king, the royal family, satraps, or private individuals. It could comprise bow land (bt qati ), horse land (bt ss ), and chariot land (bt narkabti ). The recipients of the plots were required to render (military) service (ilku). One of the original purposes of the aru was to ensure that soldiers were fit for service at all times, and even in late aknu the armaments and training of the soldiers met the highest standards. Later the obligation to render military service was monetarized, being replaced through payments of silver and the leasing out of the lands themselves. In the Hellenistic period, service in foreign armies rose substantially (Hengel 1988: 2132). From the references to the Transjordanian Ammanitis in the Zenon Papyri as well as from local epigraphic evidence, we know that in the mid-third century b.c.e. a Jew named Tobiah ruled a military colony (Tyros or Zur, Airaq al-Amir) inhabited by Greek-Macedonian, Persian, and Jewish soldiers and cavalry units.7 For
6. For Elephantine, see Porten 1968. For mercenaries in Saite and Persian period Egypt, see most recently P. Kaplan 2003. For the texts from l-Yhdu and Nasar (TAYN) corpus, see Pearce (2006) as well as her article in the present volume, pp. 267277 and Cornelia Wunschs presentation at the conference (not published here). The Murash documents offer us sparse-yet-valuable insights into Judeans serving in the military. For example, we know of a Gedalyaw who volunteered to serve a mounted and armored archer in the place of a Murash son (see Cardascia 1951: 17981; 1958; Widengren 1956). 7. This Tobiah likely stands in direct continuity with Nehemiahs nemesis of the same name. If so, it is possible that already in the Persian period Tobiah controlled troops that were in some way linked to Judah.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

510

Jacob L. Wright

Egypt, the papyrological and epigraphic evidence indicates widespread settlement of Jews in military functions (see discussion in Kasher 1985: 3855). For example, Papyrus Cowley 81 (c. 310 b.c.e.) refers to 10 places between Migdol and Syene where Jews resided. Hibeh Papyrus I 96 (260 b.c.e.) shows that Jewish soldiers possessed land grants in the vicinity of the towns and villages of the Faym (the capital Krokodilopis, Kerkeosiris, Samaria-Kerkesephis, Apias, Trikomia, and Hephaistais; see also the important reference to Jewish soldiers from the year 226 b.c.e. in CPJ I 19). Closer to the Nile, in the Herakleopolite, Jewish soldiers received smaller plots.8 For the second century b.c.e., the importance of Jewish soldiers in Egypt seems to have grown. For example, from Papyrus Hauniensis (158 b.c.e.), we know of a Jewish cavalry officer (epistates of a hipparchy) from Thebes named Iasibis/Eliyashib (see also Tebtunis Papyrus III 1019; CPJ I 29; III 1075; CPJ I 30). Josephus reports a general named Onias (most likely the fourth) who boasted of military exploits in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia before founding a temple and military colony in Leontopolis. Jewish soldiers settled between Memphis and Pelusium after receiving a grant from Philometer, as demonstrated by epitaphs from Tell el-Yehoudieh (Horbury and Noy 1992: nos. 51182). The sons of Onias served as army commanders for Cleopatra III, and Jews still retained military importance there in the time of Hyrcanus II (Collins 2000: 6973). For the Seleucids we lack papyrological witnesses comparable to what we have for the Ptolemies in Egypt. Josephus cites a letter purportedly written from the eastern provinces sometime between 212 and 205/4 b.c.e. in which Antiochus III announces to Zeuxis, the governor of Phrygia and Lydia, of his decision to transfer 2,000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylonia to serve as cleruchs in the fortresses and most important places in their provinces. The edict of Demetrius presented in 2 Maccabees 10 allows for up to 30,000 Jews to serve in the kings forces with the same remuneration that is due all the kings soldiers; the text emphasizes that they were to answer to native officers
8. The properties, called kleroi, were granted by a Ptolemaic basileus to Jewish cleruchs as a reward for military service. Originally revocable, the grants of tenure became with time transferable and inheritable and thus contributed to growing fortunes. The size of the plot was directly related to a cleruchs social standing, and they ranged between 20 and 100 arouras (512 and 100 hectares). The cleruchies in the hands of Jewish soldiers probably ranged in all sizes (the largest one we know was 80 arouras), which suggests that they were treated equally to Greek-speaking immigrants. The fact that Jews received these land grants made them the target of the same animosities that the native Egyptian peasants directed at other Greek-speaking minorities; see Modrzejewski 1995: 8387; Kasher 1985: 10567 and older literature cited in Hengel 1988: 2325).

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

511

and be allowed to live after their own laws (vv. 3637). Similarly, 2 Macc 8:20 tells that 8,000 Jews fought in Babylonia alongside 4,000 Macedonians; while legendary, the statement may have some historical basis. From the time of Herod, we hear of a certain Babylonian Jewish warrior named Zamaris who crossed the Euphrates with 500 mounted archers. He requested a dwelling place from the Roman governor of Syria and later received from Herod a city (Bathyra) that he garrisoned (see Josephus, Ant. 17.2.13; the archeological evidence cited in Kasher 1985: 301 n. 120; and the most recent discussion in Rocca 2008: 18890). Although one cannot accept these numbers at face value, the question nonetheless poses itself: why would such a large number of Jews have served in the imperial armies of the Hellenistic Age? Many scholars agree that Ptolemy I followed his Saitic and Persian predecessors by bringing Jews to Egypt in order to serve as soldiers. A sizeable portion of these Jews may have been forcibly deported and conscripted in the aftermath of the Syrian wars of 320, 312, and 302 b.c.e. According to Letter of Aristeas 2225, Ptolemy II Philadelphus ordered the Jewish captives to be released, which led a large number to take up military service. The Ptolemies were much more reticent to employ indigenous Egyptians in the army than in civil administration (Kasher 1985: 58). Many Jews would have volunteered for socioeconomic reasons. In the third century b.c.e., Judea witnessed sustained population growth yet still lacked an infrastructure conducive to the creation of widespread wealth. Hence, the military was an attractive option both for elites and for the poor. The former would have deemed their chances of upward mobility to be greater in the imperial armies than back home in Judea (see comments by Kasher 1992: 1067), whereas the latter would have been motivated simply by hungry stomachs. (The Judean and Samarian hill country has a long history of social groupsranging from the Habiru in the LB to the urbi in the time of Hezekiah and various groups mentioned in biblical literature [Naaman 2000]who lived on the fringes of society and took by force what they needed from the settled population.9) Perhaps the most basic reason for the number of Jews in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid armies is that they had already been serving in imperial forces during the Persian period. Whatever the case may be, it seems safe to say that foreign military service constituted a major factor in the rise of Jewish diasporas (Hengel 1988: 30).
9. Martin Hengel (1988) compares Judeans in the Hellenistic period to the Swiss Reislaufen from the 15th century c.e.: both were employed in foreign armies because their hilly, rocky lands could not feed their growing populations.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

512

Jacob L. Wright

Ideologies and Attitudes Accompanying Foreign Military Service

In contrast to the more individualist and quotidian reasons that motivated foreign military service, Jewish literary sources emphasize collective allegiance to the empire. This emphasis in Hellenistic literature is especially pronounced. While Agatharchides (mid-second century b.c.e.) had reported that Ptolemy I Soter captured Jerusalem and treated its inhabitants cruelly, other writers emphasized a harmonious relationship. Josephus cites a passage from (Pseudo-)Hecataeus of Abdera in which after the battle of Gaza many Judeans, hearing of the kindness and humanity (philanthrpia) of Ptolemy I Soter, flocked to Soter after his victory at Gaza and expressed their desire to take up residence in his country. The leader of this eisodus into Egypt is referred to as the 66-year-old high priest Hezekiah, whom some identify with the governor of Judea by the same name during the final years of Achaemenid hegemony.10 Pseudo-Hecataeus also recounts the story (CA 1.200204) of the Jewish cavalry who accompanied the armies on their way to the Red Sea. A Greek seer was observing the movement of a bird in order to divine the directions for the army. When the Jewish archer Mosollamos learned of this reason for the delay of the armys advance, he shot the bird, explaining that if the avian creature could forecast the future, it should have been able to avoid his arrow. The moral seems to be the contrast between Jewish military skill and common sense, on the one hand, and the superstitious behavior of other nations represented in Ptolemys army, on the other. As Eric Gruen writes, This is no critique of the Hellenistic ruler. Quite the contrary. It indirectly confirms his sound judgment, like that of Alexander before him, in recruiting Jewish fighters for his forces: they are loyal, accomplished, and smart (1998: 206). In a passage not attributed to Hecataeus yet probably drawn from a source (Ant. 11.339; see Wright 2004: 26268), Josephus claims that, when Alexander visited Jerusalem, he offered Jews a place in his army and received an enthusiastic response. Similarly, in J.W. 2.487 he asserts that Jews fought valiantly for Alexander in his campaign against Egypt. In recognition of their loyal military service, the Jews were granted civic privileges on par with Greeks and Macedonians. Although Egypt

10. The connection is based not least on the early Jewish coins of Hezekiah the governor, a figure who seems to be the last governor at the end of Achaemenid rule and may have been of high-priestly descent; see first the publication by Rahmani (1971) and the lengthy discussion by Bar-Kochva (1996: 25571).

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

513

surrendered to Alexander without a fight, the historical facts did not discourage Jewish creativity (Gruen 1998: 199). The author of the Letter of Aristeas was more subtle. While admitting that the Ptolemy I Soter, during his invasion of Coele-Syria, had captured and deported to Egypt 100,000 Jews, he emphasizes that they were skilled soldiers. As a sign of appreciation for their military skills, they were stationed in garrisons throughout the land, remunerated with a sizeable pay, and fortified the rights of the Jews already living in Egypt. Responsibility for those sold into slavery is deflected from the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty and ascribed to the ill will of his troops (1214; cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.1133). The Egyptian Jewish communities viewed Moses as their paragon and, not surprisingly, they claimed for him impressive feats as a military leader. The account of Hecataeus of Abdera as transmitted in Diodorus (40.3.38) ascribes to Moses an array of political, religious, social and economic innovations that included not least an emphasis on training Jewish youth in the art of warfare. The little-known Artapanos (second century b.c.e.) goes so far as to claim that Moses invented the weapons and war machines of the Egyptian army and for ten years successfully waged war against the Ethiopians with a militia of 100,000 men whom he personally trained (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27.310). For the origins of this legend of Moses as a skilled tactician, Donna Runnallss thorough study points to the use by Ashurbanipal of Manassehs forces in his military campaign against Egypt, Nubia and Cush and the fact that there was a Persian military colony of Jewish mercenaries in Elephantine which was to defend Egypts southern border (1983: 149).11 One could also mention here the passage in the Letter of Aristeas 13, referred to above, in which Judahites are said to have fought in the armies of Psammetichus against the Ethiopians. At about the same time Egyptians are remembering Moses as a skilled military leader, Mesopotamian Jewsperhaps those connected to the militaryseem to have been imagining their hero, Abraham, as a valiant warrior. One product of this legend creation is, I would suggest, the story of the battle of four against five in Genesis 14. This
11. More recently, Thomas Rmer has agreed with this conclusion: One may speculate that this development of the image of Moses might have taken place among Jewish mercenaries, in Elephantine or elsewhere. These mercenaries were likely eager to refer to Moses as the inventor of military art and excellence (2008: 11; see also 2007). It should be noted that the story of Moses Ethiopian campaign, while absent in biblical tradition, is set forth also in later Jewish sources: from the Divrei ha-Yamim shel Moshe it was picked up in the anthologies Sefer ha-Yashar, Sefer ha-Zikhronot, and Yalqut Shimoni.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

514

Jacob L. Wright

text ascribes to the patriarch a remarkable victory over ancient Mesopotamian kings when he fightsin keeping with a diasporic ethos of solidarityto defend his neighbors from an eastern military alliance headed by an Elamite king. The strange account is generally considered a very late addition to the Abraham narratives; the most recent treatment by Benjamin Ziemer (2005: 13536) argues for a fifth-century date. See also the brilliant treatment of the passage by Yochanan Muffs (1982). Against the backdrop of this later literature, we are in a better position to appreciate the emphasis on a special relationship to the king in Persian-period texts. Thus, the letter (TAD A.4.7/8) sent in the 14th year of Darius II from the military colony at Elephantine to the governor of Yehud affirms the preferential treatment enjoyed by the temple in Yeb when Cambyses entered Egypt. And they overthrew the temples of the gods of Egypt, all (of them), but one did not damage anything in that temple. In the context of the letter, the statement functions to establish the antiquity and importance of the temple. Yet it may well reflect early Persian policy in Egypt. It is not unlikely that Cambyses (as well as his Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman successors) would have granted special favors to Judean/Jewish soldiers because theyas a non-native populationwould have been perceived as useful intermediaries between their own rule and the native Egyptians. As Geo Widengren wrote, the Jews were in the service of Persia and were thus an arm of the foreign oppressor. . . . [They] were loyal to the Persian crown and could therefore be used by the satrap against the Egyptians when they rebelled, as they did repeatedly (1977: 531). This go-between role would become a common feature of Jewish history. Identified as the characteristic quality or trait of Jews in European history (Hensel 1983: 93; see also Rosman 1990), it was also a typical function for Jews in Muslim lands and seems to have been adopted later by Christian rulers from their Muslim predecessors (see the discussion throughout Robert Mantrans magisterial Istanbul [1962], as well as Baron 1972, the remarks by Cohen in his edition of Abraham Ibn Dauds The Book of Tradition [196667: 26389], and R. I. Burns 1975: 272 and passim). The precursor to these financial and administrative functions in the Middle Ages and early Modern period is military service, as we witness in evidence from Persian-Hellenistic Egypt.12
12. Admittedly, the mantle worn by the three leading imperial representatives in biblical literature (Joseph, Daniel, and Mordechai) is that of an administrator/ governor, not a high-ranking military officer. However, these biblical depictions may have to do less with any conscious denial of the importance of foreign military service for Judean/Jewish communities than with an attempt to portray the heroic

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

515

Viewed from the perspective of Judean/Jewish communities, allegiance to the emperor was strengthened by the growing consciousness that the foreign ruler was responsible for and was indeed genuinely interested in the welfare of his conquered peoples. Already the Assyrian kings, who were the first rulers to deport large numbers of Judahites, present themselves as the direct overlords of the deportees. The Lachish reliefs present captives from Hezekiahs former territories filing past Sennacherib. These scenes did not just illustrate the kings direct involvement in the conquest but also express the legal jurisdiction of the POWs: they were officially the kings possession, and he decided their fate. Hence, many of the letters dealing with various matters of the refugees welfare (from physical provisions such as shoes, clothes, oil, and water bags to familial and psychological issues) are addressed directly to the king (Oded 1979: 3640). Official imperial oversight of deportees and their descendants provides the necessary framework for interpreting much of the literary evidence from the Persian period, whether it be biblical literature or the archives from the imperial garrison at Elephantine or cuneiform documents from Murash, l-Yhdu, and Nasar. Indeed, the special protection offered by high rulers (emperors or kings or popes or archbishops) comes to define Jewish experience up until the modern period. In medieval England and France, Jews were known as the the kings Jews and Juifs du roi. Similarly, the Worms charter of 1157 claimed exclusive imperial authority over Jewish communities. This is what Baron (195283: 4:3643) called the royal alliance, and his student Yosef H. Yerushalmi (1976, 1995) has helpfully charted the origins and history of this alliance between kings and Jews that exerted such a powerful influence on Jewish self-understandings for centuries.13 While the prehistory of this alliance can be found, I suggest, in the earliest experiences of Judahites with conquest and deportation during the reign of Hezekiah and Sennacherib, the first formulations of the alliance itself may be traced to the Persian period. For it is at this time that we witness various endeavors to legitimate theologically and ideologically a new role for the foreign king: the divinely ordained successor to the Davidic king (see Wright 2008: 28283 and literature cited there).
figures receiving unsurpassable honors and rising to the highest offices in the imperial courts. 13. One of the clearest expressions of the mentality that accompanied imperial protection was formulated by Bahya ben Asher of Sargossa: He who is a vassal of one of the kings nobles is not of such high station as though he were vassal of the king, for the vassal of the king is feared even by the nobles and ministers, out of fear for the king himself (Perush al ha-Torah, Deut 28:10).

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

516

Jacob L. Wright

In the new situation of statelessness or severely confined territorial autonomy, an ideal figure of Jewish identity was the savvy, god-fearing courtier who through various means manages to survive and succeed in an environment of never-ending palace intrigues and antagonism. What stimulated the composition of court tales of this sort would have been their appeal not solely to individual elites but alsoand perhaps even more soto whole communities who saw themselves personified in these figures. In Ezra 4, the adversaries of Judah resort to bribery, letter writing, and other machinations in order to incite the imperial court to prohibit through force of armsthe construction of the Jerusalem temple. While the factuality of this account is called into question by various considerations (not least by the inner opposition to temple construction as reflected in Haggai 1), the scenario is fully plausible. Bribery and malicious letter writing are referred to repeatedly in the archive from Elephantine (see Porten 1968: 28283), and in the letter quoted above, activities of this sort led to a violent destruction of the Temple of Yhw. Whatever the real cause for the incident may have been (see Kraeling 1953: 1, 2, 4; Briant 1996; and Lindenberger 1994: 6368), the writers of the letteras the authors of Ezra 4are clearly convinced of the deepseated malicious intentions of their neighbors: they accuse Vidranga, the Khnum priests, and the Egyptians of looting precious items, smashing the pillars, and setting the building ablaze. One passage seems to be a call for revenge against those who had plotted the evil (Lindenberger 2001). In this situation, it is easy to understand why the assaulted community at Elephantine not only turned to their homeland by writing letters to Samaria and Jerusalem but in their letter to Jerusalem also held high the memory of the Persian kingthe one whom they served and whose favor they needed in these times of crisis. As representatives of Persian rule in Egypt, the Judean garrison knew that itdespite being well-armed and trainedwas exposed and vulnerable, especially in times of rebellion against the empire.14 It is
14. Compare Bustenay Odeds comments on deportees in the Neo-Assyrian evidence: The hostility between the deportees and the local population increased whenever the national sentiment of the local population, and their desire to throw off the Assyrian yoke, grew. The deportees did not share the national aspirations of the local population. Liberation from Assyrian rule could only be detrimental to them, since they had been brought to the country and settled there by the king of Assyria. These deportees were therefore compelled to support the local Assyrian governor, not out of gratitude for the king for the fields and property he had bestowed upon them, but out of fear for their lives (1979: 46). See his further comments on the protection offered by the king and the settling of deportees in border towns and sensitive border areas (1979: 4648), which are important as an imperial

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

517

not unlikely that the disappearance of evidence for a Judean garrison at Elephantine after 399 b.c.e. dates directly to reestablishment of native Egyptian rule (the 28th Dynasty). Indeed, the first destruction of the temple and the stopping up of the well of water in the garrison (TAD A.4.5) are significantly dated by the writers of the letters to a time when the kings closest representative (the satrap Arsames) had left Egypt for an extended period. I began this essay by distinguishing between two roles for Judean soldiers: one protecting imperial interests and the other protecting native interests. The contrast in political stance between native and foreign military service during the Persian period is perhaps most manifest when we compare the scene of an imperial garrison of well-armed professional soldiers at Elephantine passively standing by and witnessing the destruction of their temple, on the one hand, to the scenario of Nehemiah hearing a rumor of an attack and then seizing the opportunity to mobilize the builders into a militia, on the other. The Nehemiah memoir defends a model of polity according to which Judeans live in their homeland and are prepared to defend their borders through martial means. This model faces, not surprisingly, accusations of rebellion against the empire (2:1920 and 6:59; cf. 9:3637). In this and other respects, one can trace a line of continuity between the ideals set forth in Nehemiah 113 and the political developments under the Maccabees and Hasmoneans (who probably esteemed Nehemiahs name; see Sir 49:13 and 2 Macc 1:102:18). Nehemiahs account, in its fundamental orientation, departs from the nonmilitary modus operandi that we witness in the archives from Elephantine. In the latter, we can observe Judeans working within the confines of the imperial political process, which is manifested materially in the numerous letters being sent back and forth between their community and offices within the imperial bureaucracy (whether they be local satraps or more distant officials such as Sanballat and Bagohi who could potentially offer political support). Ezra 16 also depicts this political-bureaucratic practice of letter-writing, and although it critiques the practice, it is ultimately sanguine about the imperial political process and its benefits for Judah (see Wright 2008: 27985). In contrast to this model in Ezra 16 (and 78), with its emphasis on the temple in Jerusalem as the conduit of imperial benefaction, Nehemiahs account presents a transition to self-government and shift of purview from the cultic center (the altar and temple) to the periphery
administrative context for understanding the evidence for Judean settlements in the Achaemenid period.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

518

Jacob L. Wright

(the wall). Nehemiah makes a move from Susa to Jerusalem that is not only geographical but also conceptual: He sets out with letters from the king, as well as officers of the imperial army and cavalry (2:79). Yet when faced with hostility from his neighbors, he does not draw on these troops or the documents, nor does he write letters of complaint to the court, as in Ezra 46. Instead, he takes matters into his own hands and forms an army consisting of native Judeans ready and willing to fight for [their] brothers, sons, daughters, wives, and homes (4:8; cf. 1 Macc 3:21, 5:31, and passim).15 Although Nehemiahs account poses many problems with respect to historical factuality, it draws into sharp relief the ethos of diasporic communities and the many Judeans who earned their livelihoods fighting in the ranks of imperial armies. These two polesthe one affirming loyalty and allegiance to foreign governments and the other affirming the need for well-defended homelandrepresent the bookends in which a history of the Second Temple can be written.

Concluding Remarks
The evidence relating to Judeans serving in foreign armies could be interrogated from different vantage points from the ones I have chosen here. My aim in this essay has been, first and foremost, to demonstrate that in the study of Judean identity during the Persian period, war and the military deserve a place along other more commonly treated religious topics. Foreign military service not only has a long history that predates the Babylonian destruction but was also one of the major factors that propelled the growth of Judean diasporas. Moreover, I have argued that Judean soldiers represent the direct antecedent of the Jewish financial and administrative mediators from the Middle Ages.
15. Later, Nehemiah appoints guards in Jerusalem and introduces additional security measures. Upon completion of the wall, he appoints gatekeepers (7:1) and assigns Hananiah, the captain of the fortress ( ,) the office of oversight in Jerusalem (v. 2). He also issues strict orders pertaining to the times and procedures for opening and closing the gates (v. 3a). The inhabitants of Jerusalem were all to serve as guards, some at watch posts and others before their own houses (v. 3b). The city is, however, sparsely inhabited, so Nehemiah sets about the task of repopulating it (vv. 472). When, after a lengthy digression (chaps. 810), the theme of the repopulation of Jerusalem resumes, we are told that the captains of the militia ( ; cf., e.g., 1 Chr 21:2 LXX) resided in the city, and the rest of the people cast lots (a popular military method) to determine which tenth of the population would resettle in the capital (11:12). The following list identifies among these residents 468 valorous men ( ) from the Judean clan of Perez (v. 6) and 128 valorous warriors ( ) of priestly lineage (v. 13). Cf. also 13:1922.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

519

Foreign military service was not divorced from political interests. With respect to ideology, it had a direct impact, as we have seen, on the formation of legends that ascribe exemplary military virtues to Judean soldiers and their forefathers, such as Moses and Abraham. In this essay, I have drawn attention to the emphasis on the special relationship between royal courts and communities of imperial soldiers. It remains now to situate my observations in the larger context of military service and political agendas. One of the most popular ways for individuals and political communities to claim rights and privileges is to affirm that they are soldiers or have a history of fighting in defense of collectivewhether it be the empire, a kingdom, or in more modern times, the nation-state. Nothing is more politically effective than the message that one is willing to sacrifice his or her lifeor belongs to a family or community that has shed its blood for the sake of a ruler or a people. For the ancient world, the Persian War memorials at Athens offer us some of the richest material for study (Derderian 2001: 10213). From contemporary history, one can cite many cases of women, ethnic minorities, and other social groups who have sought political and cultural advancement by reminding others of their sacrifices in the wars fought by the nation (see Ashplant, Dawson, and Roper 2000). Thus, one could examine the number of U.S. memorials since the 1960s that commemorate African American military service.16 In the same way, Jewish Americans have claimed political rights and social integration by pointing to a history of military service (see, e.g., Deborah Dash Moores GI Jews [2004]). In Washington, D C, one can even visit a National Museum of Jewish Military History. Against the backdrop of projects of collective memory and war commemoration such as these, we can better appreciate the political stance of Judeans in the Second Temple period fighting in foreign armies and constructing memories of faithful military service in earlier days (e.g., in Egyptian communities, back in the times of Psammetichus, Alexander the Great, and Ptolemy I Soter). That political rights and status in Jewish history go hand in hand with military service in foreign armies can be seen from the prohibition Theodosius II placed on Jews on all military posts of honor (honos militia et administrationis) and the laws,
16. Rebecca Kook discusses a memorial erected in Baltimore Maryland in which an African American soldier is depicted reading a scroll inscribed with the dates of the wars fought by African Americans. This memorial is especially significant because it both commemorates and attests to the lack of previous commemoration. . . . The symbolic reading of the dates can be taken as a public condemnation of the historic exclusion of African American soldiers from war memory (2002: 11617).

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

520

Jacob L. Wright

beginning in the fourth century c.e., which excluded Jews from carrying arms and military service.17 Although many cases are known of Jews fighting valiantly for their cities and lands during the Middle Ages and early Modern period, the program for The Civil Improvement of the Jews (ber die brgerliche Verbesserung der Juden) set forth in 178183 by Christian Wilhelm Dohm faced its greatest resistance on the issue of permitting Jews to join the armies of Germany. As the chief respondent to Dohms proposal, the well-known scholar of oriental and biblical studies, Johann David Michaelis, claimed that Jews could not be allowed to fight because of their Sabbath and Kashrut laws, their poor physical constitution, and their unwillingness to drink beer with Germans in the taverns (see von Dohm 1973). The differences between the Achaemenid Empire and the states of pre-modern Germany are undeniable. Yet the principle remains the same, and for Michaelis it was clear: If Jews were allowed to serve in the military, they could lay claims to political and civil rights. The history of this Kulturkampf and the relationship between the reemergence of Jewish national armies and foreign military service, must of course be treated elsewhere. Yet it is important to acknowledge the similar dynamics that persistently shape the long history of foreign military service and identityfrom both before and after the Persian period.

Appendix: Ethnic Identity and Designations for Military Detachments

In his book, The Beginnings of Jewishness, Shaye J. D. Cohen draws attention to a distinct meaning of the term Ioudaios in the papyri of Ptolemaic Egypt that he refers to as a designation of a military status (1999: 102). He begins by noting that Ioudaios is functionally indistinguishable from the other ethnic terms [Achaean, Athenian, Carian, Macedonian, Persian, etc.], and consequently should always be understood in an ethnic geographic sense: Judaean and not Jew (1999: 101). Yet, as he points out, many of the ethnic-geographic terms changed their meanings over time. Thus, the designations for the cavalry units of the Ptolemaic army (Thessalians and other Greeks, Thracians, Mysians, Persians, and Macedonians) only denote the earliest ethnic origins. Later they represent pseudo-ethnics because they comprised many soldiers from other nationalities. (The phenomenon can be witnessed throughout military history; for example, the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish regiments of the British army retained their names long after these
17. In his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome pointed to this exclusion as the fulfillment of prophecy.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

521

regiments included soldiers of other ethnicities.) Therefore, one would expect Jews to have been included in military detachments named after other ethnicities. And this expectation is borne out by the evidence of the papyri.18 The flipside of this coin is that everyone who is designated as a Jew in the papyri may not have been one. With respect to the phrase ts epigons that often modifies ethnic terms, Tcherikover noted that soldiers who had been settled in cleruchies intermarried with the native population and gave birth to new generations in their settlement that followed in the military tradition of their fathers. These epigon served as a permanent source for new enlistments and the term came to mean army of reserves. When soldiers stated their names for official purposes, they specified their origins (Macedonian, Thracian, Mysian, Persian, etc.), the details of their detachment, and whether they belonged to the epigon (1957: 13). Hence, not every Ioudaios ts epigons would have been a Jew.19 For the Ptolemies, Cohen writes: [W]e must allow for the possibility that individuals might be known as Judaeans not because they are ethnic or geographic Judaeans or Jews, but simply because they are member of a certain troop of soldiers that had once consisted of Judaeans and therefore kept the name Judaean even after its ethnic composition had changed. The Judaean group bestowed the Judaean name on all its members (1999: 82).20 Moreover, the practice noted by Cohen parallels what we observe in the Elephantine papyri. Bezalel Porten argues that the Jewish troop were originally settled in Elephantine, while the Arameans were stationed in Syene. The argument is based on the recurrent term Aramean of Syene and the presence in Syene of temples to Nabu, Banit, Bethel, and Malkat-Shamayin. However, many documents refer to a Jew as an Aramean of Elephantine or as an Aramean of Syene (see Porten 1968: 33). Naomi J. Cohen (196667) and R. Yaron (1964) studied this evidence and concluded that Jews saw themselves as Arameans while others saw them as Jews. They come to this conclusion by showing that, in 10 out of 11 contracts in which Jews are called Arameans, both
18. That at least in one instance Jews are listed in Macedonian detachments (Hengel 1988: 30 n. 91) may provide a clue to anyone who would endeavor to trace Jewish soldiers during the transition from Achaemenid to Lagide and Ptolemaic Egypt. 19. This statement may also apply to the Regii Emeseni Iudaei in the Roman army; see Woods 1992. 20. At the 2008 Egyptology conference in Leiden, Katelijn Vandorpe presented a paper that looked at the problem of the ts epigons and showed the possibility that it may refer to reserve soldiers who were not needed for active duty.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

522

Jacob L. Wright

parties are Jews. On the other hand, in 2 out of 3 contracts in which one of the parties was non-Jewish, the other was referred to as a Jew. From this, it seems that Jews normally referred to themselves as Arameans, while others referred to them as Jews. In response to Cohen and Yaron, Porten argues that the designation Aramean should be explained by the fact that the Jews were considered members of the larger Aramaic-speaking group (1968: 33). While the point is valid, it does not account fully for the problem. I suggest that the evidence may be better interpreted in light of what we witness later in the Greek papyri. The term Jew and Aramean accordingly may have been a function of membership in distinct military detachments, rather than a designation of national origins. The question Are you a Jew or an Aramean? insofar as it was ever asked, may have been understood often as a question of to what garrison one belonged.21
21. Related to this point, intermarriage may have been no more of a problem for the soldiers in Elephantine-Syene than it was for other military colonies. The practice was so common in Syria and Phoenicia, for example, that the concubines from the native populations belonging to soldiers were granted a nonslave status (Papyrus Rainer).

Bibliography
Ashplant, T. G.; Dawson, G.; and Roper, M. 2000 The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration. London: Routledge. Bar-Kochva, B. 1996 Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora. Hellenistic Culture and Society 21. Berkeley: University of California Press. Baron, S. W. 195283 A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2nd ed. 18 vols. New York: Columbia University Press. Baron, S. W., and Feldman, L. A. 1972 Ancient and Medieval Jewish History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Borger, R., and Berger, C. 2006 Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestcke, vol. 1: Die Texte in Umschrift. 3rd ed.; Analecta Orientalia 54. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Briant, P. 1996 Une curieuse affaire lephantine en 410 av. n..: Widranga, le sanctuaire de Khnm et le temple de Yahwey. Mditerranes 67: 11535. Burns, R. I. 1975 Medieval Colonialism: Postcrusade Exploitation of Islamic Valencia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

523

Cardascia, G. 1951 Les archives des Mura: Une famille dhommes daffaires babyloniens lpoque perse. Pp. 455403 av. J.-C. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1958 Le fief dans la Babylonie achmnide. Pp. 5588 in vol. 1 of Recueils de la Socit Jean Bodin. 2nd ed. Brussels: Libraire Internationale. Cobben, A. 1969 The Nation State and National Self-Determination. New York: Crowell. Cohen, G. D. 1958 Abraham ibn Dauds Sefer ha-qabbalah: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and an Annotated Translation of the First Part. Ph.D. diss. Columbia University. Cohen, N. J. 196667 Historical Conclusions Gleaned from the Names of the Jews of Elephantine. Leonenu 31: 97106, 199210. [Hebrew] Cohen, S. 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press. Collins, J. J. 2000 Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dalley, S. 1985 Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. lraq 47: 3148. Derderian, K. 2001 Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplementa 216. Leiden: Brill. Dohm, C. C. W. von 1973 ber die brgerliche Verbesserung der Juden: 2 Teile in 1 Bd. Hildesheim: Olms. [Original, Berlin: Berlin U. Stettin 178183; and Kaiserslautern 1891.] Donbaz, V., and Stolper, M. W. 1997 Istanbul Murashu Texts. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Fales, F. M. 1991 West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire: Diffusion and Social Relevance. Studi epigrafici e linguistici 8: 99117. Fantalkin, A. 2001 Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv 28: 3166. 2006 Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age. Pp. 199208 in Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt, ed. Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer. London: British Museum. Glock, A. E. 1968 Warfare in Mari and Early Israel. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Goetze, A. 1967 Die Annalen des Mursilis. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

524

Jacob L. Wright

Gruen, E. 1998 Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hayajneh, H. 2001 First Evidence of Nabonidus in the Ancient North Arabian Inscriptions from the Region of Tayma. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 31: 8195. Hengel, M. 1988 Judentum und Hellenismus. 3rd ed. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hensel, J., and Lwe, H.-D. 1983 Polnische Adelsnation und jdische Vermittler, 18151830: ber den vergeblichen Versuch einer Judenemanzipation in einer nicht emanzipierten Gesellschaft. Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Horbury, W., and Noy, D. 1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joanns, F. 1990 Pouvoirs locaux et organisations du territoire en Babylonie achmnide. Transeuphratne 3: 17389. Joanns, F., and Lemaire, A. 1999 Trois tablettes cuniformes onomastique ouest-smitique (collection Sh. Moussaeff). Transeuphratne 17: 1734. Kasher, A. 1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1992 The Civic Status of Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt. Pp. 100121 in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, ed. Per Bilde et al. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Kahn, D. 2008 Some Remarks on the Foreign Policy of Psammetichus II in the Levant (595589 b.c.). Journal of Egyptian History 1: 13957. Kaplan, P. 2003 Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt. Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 131. Kaplan, Y. 2008 Recruitment of Foreign Soldiers into the Neo-Assyrian Army during the Reign of Tiglath-Pileser III. Pp. 13552 in Treasures on Camels Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephal, ed. M. Cogan and Danel Kahn. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kelle, B. E. 2002 Whats in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation. JBL 121: 63966.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

525

Kook, R. B. 2002 The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian Citizens in Israel. Lanham, MD: Lexington. Kraeling, E. G. 1953 The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lindenberger, J. M. 1994 Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. Writings from the Ancient World. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2001 What Ever Happened to Vidranga? A Jewish Liturgy of Cursing from Elephantine. Pp. 13457 in vol. 3 of The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul Eugne Dion, ed. P. M. Michle Daviau, John H. Wevers, and Michael Weigl. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Mantran, R. 1962 Istanbul dans la seconde moiti du XVIIe sicle: Essai dhistoire institutionnelle, conomique et social. Paris: Maisonneuve. Modrzejewski, J. 1995 The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. New York: Jewish Publication Society. Moore, D. D. 2004 GI Jews: How World War II Changed a Generation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Muffs, Y. 1982 Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel. JSS 33: 81107. Mller, W. W., and al-Said, S. F. 2001 Der babylonische Knig Nabonid in tay-ma-nischen Inschriften. Biblische Notizen 1078: 10919. Naaman, N. 1991 The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. TA 18: 169. 2000 Habiru-Like Bands in the Assyrian Empire and Bands in Biblical Historiography. JAOS 120: 62124. Niemann, H. M. 2007 Wagen Israels und sein(e) Lenker (2 Kn 2,12): Neue Erwagungen zur Militarund Wirtschaftspolitik der Omriden. Pp. 1535 in Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres. Festschrift fr Georg Hentschel, ed. Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher et al. Wuerzburg: Echter. Niemeier, W.-D. 2002. Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites in the Levant. Tel Aviv 29: 32831. Oded, B. 1979 Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

526

Jacob L. Wright

Pearce, L. E. 2006 New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia. Pp. 399411 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Porten, B. 1968 Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rahmani, L. Y. 1971 Silver Coins of the Fourth Century b.c. from Tel Gamma. IEJ 21: 15860. Rocca, S. 2008 Herods Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 122. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rmer, T. 2007 La construction de la figure de Moise. Paris: Gabalda. 2008 Moses Outside the Torah and the Construction of a Diaspora Identity. JHS 8/15: 212. Rosman, M. J. 1990 The Lords Jews: Magnate-Jewish Relations in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the 18th Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Runnalls, D. 1983 Moses Ethiopian Campaign. JSJ 18: 13556. San Nicol, M. 1937 Zur Nachbrgschaft in den Keilschrifturkunden und in den grko-gyptischen Papyri. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Abt. 6. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sasson, J. M. 1969 The Military Establishments at Mari. Studia Pohl 3. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Smith, M. S. 2007 Your People Shall Be My People: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16 17. CBQ 69: 24258. Stolper, M. W. 1985 Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murashu Archive, the Murashu Firm, and the Persian Rule in Babylonia. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Tadmor, H. 1975 Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath. Pp.36 48 in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1988 The urbi of Hezekiah. Beer-sheva 3: 17178. [Hebrew] Tcherikover, V., et al. 1957 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Foreign Military Service and Judean Identity

527

Tuplin, C. J. 1987 The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire. Pp. 10966 in Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, ed. Ian Carradice. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Wenning, R. 1989 Mesad Hashavyahu: Ein Sttzpunkt des Jojakim? Pp. 16996 in Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte, ed. F. L. Hossfel. Wrzburg: Echter. 2001 Griechische Sldner in Palastina. Pp. 25768 in Die Beziehungen zu Ostgriechenland, gypten und Zypern in archaischer Zeit: Akten der Tabler Ronde in Mainz, 25.27.11.1999, ed. U. Hckmann and D. Kreikenbom. Mhnesee: Wamel. Wiesehfer, J. 1999 Kontinuitat oder Zasur? Babylon under den Achaimeniden. Pp.16788 in Babylon: Focus Mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege frher Gelehrsamheit, Mythos in der Moderne, ed. J. Renger. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcken Druckerei und Verlag. Widengren, G. 1956 Recherches sur le feodalisme iranien. Orientalia Suecana 5: 15053. 1977 The Persian Period. Pp. 489538 in Israelite and Judean History, ed. John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. London: SCM. Wiseman, D. J. 1956 Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626556 b.c.). London: Trustees of the British Museum. Wolf, C. 1970 Garrison Community: A Study of an Overseas American Military Colony. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Woods, D. 1992 A Note Concerning the Regii Emeseni Iudaei. Latomus 51: 4047. Wright, J. L. 2004 Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers. BZAW 348. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2008 SeekingFindingWriting. Pp. 277305 in Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Yamada, S. 2000 The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III (859824 bc) Relating to His Campaigns to the West. CHANE 3. Leiden: Brill. Yaron, R. 1964 Who Is Who at Elephantine. Iura 15: 16772. Yerushalmi, Y. 1976 The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

528
1995

Jacob L. Wright

Diener von Koenigen und nicht Diener von Dienern: Einige Aspekte der politschen Geschichte der Juden. Munich: Stiftung. Younger, K. L. 1998 The Deportations of the Israelites. JBL 117: 20127. Ziemer, B. 2005 Abram-Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17. BZAW 350. Berlin: de Gruyter.

O print from: Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Mandfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating . . . Context Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.