2.

THE COLONIAL ANCIENT NEAR EAST Biblical literature need to be situated in the context of the
imperial ancient Near East. The colonial experience is crucial to everything that happened in Israel and
Judah.1 The Hebrew Bible is about a people’s struggle and resistance, not the documenting of a people’s
faith for documentation’s sake.2 The eminent anthropologist Clifford Geertz insists on the importance of
viewing religion in relation to the system of meanings and the social and psychological structures of
which it is a part. The proper understanding of religion involves “an analysis of the system of meanings
embodied in the religious symbols, and how this relates to social-structural and psychological
processes.”3 The “systems of meaning” embodied in Israel’s symbols primarily addressed imperial
dominance and its effects on a community. Israel’s religion is not just about the narrow class, political,
and religious interest within Israel. The actual experience and trauma of wars, of slavery, and subjugation
and the threat of cultural annihilation by the death-dealing empires 1 Berquist clarifies that the meaning
of the term Yehud: “The Persian name for the province or area that included Jerusalem and its environs.
The use of the term differentiates Jerusalem and ‘Judah’ during the postexilic period from the
independent Judah of the monarchy as well as from Judah in other periods. Also, ‘Yehud’ restricts the
analysis to the Period of Persian rule (539–333 BCE).” Jon L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 1, 10, 23. 2 As Daniel Smith-Christopher states, “The wider
anthropological work of Frederick Barth and Nelson Graburn on strategies of boundary maintenance
mechanisms allows us to see that the social forms that a minority, exiled, or refugee community creates
can be the result not of a desperate attempt to cling to pointless and antiquated traditions from a
previous era or homeland, but rather a creative construction of a ‘culture of resistance’ that preserves
group solidarity and cultural identity.” Daniel Smith-Christopher, “The Politics of Ezra Sociological
Indicators of Postexilic Judean Society,” in Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches
to the Hebrew Bible, ed. Charles E. Carter and Carol L. Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 546. 3
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 125. See also Paula
McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society, JSOTSup 108
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 266. 24 | A Filipino Resistance Reading were the catalysts in the
production of a worldview and identity that resists imperial powers.4 Biblical scholars recognize that
Israel is a part and product of the ancient Near East. But historical reconstructions of ancient Israel
presumed a history that is driven by ideas peculiar to Israel.5 In this regard, the cultural and imperial
milieu in the midst of which Israel emerged has received little attention. Israel’s sociocultural
construction must be linked with the external factors within which it is situated. Preoccupation with
objective truth has been interposed in the understanding of the Bible, 6 and this has paved the way for
triumphalist faith and theologies. 7 The Hebrew Bible is Israel’s literature for Israel’s purpose. It is
spatially and temporally located. The nature and message of Israel’s scripture is contextual. Biological
and human sciences have drawn attention to how material and actual situations affect the lives and
thoughts of peoples.8 Further, advances in anthropological, cultural, and sociopolitical sciences have
elucidated important aspects in the development of society.9 Such information calls attention to the
sociocultural factors that gave rise to societies. These studies at the same time bridge the gap between
ancient societies (including Israel) and the present. The Hebrew Bible and the early prophets (henceforth
EP), of which Joshua is a part,10 must be interpreted in conjunction with the thoughts and events of the
ancient Near East that shaped it. What we have in the Hebrew Bible are not abstract ideas but a people’s
historically grounded faith.11 4 T. R. Hobbs, A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament
(Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1935, 1989), 181. 5 Baruch Halpern, “Sociological Comparativism and the
Theological Imagination: The Case of the Conquest,” in “Sha‘rei Talmon,” Studies in the Bible, Qumran,
and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shermayahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 54. 6 Ferdinand E. Deist, The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction (Sheffield
Academic, 2000), 100. 7 Halpern, “Sociological Comparativism,” 54. 8 Karl Marx and Charles Darwin have
argued that history and human evolution are significantly determined by environmental and
sociopolitical factors. 9 See Francis Fukuyama, “The State of Nature,” in The Origins of Political Order:
From Pre-human Times to French Revolution (New York: Straus & Geroux, 2011), 26–46. 10 Some
Hebrew Bible scholars use the term Deuteronomic for Deuteronomistic. See Moshe Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 11 As Christopher Hill
says, “Ideas do not advance merely by its own logic.… Ideas were all important for the individual whom
they impelled into action; but the histo- 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East | 25 Ideas do not come out of
a vacuum. The context profoundly shapes individuals and societies.12 Ideas and concepts are not
products of mere abstraction but connect with the broader reality of the material and conceptual world
that generated and transmitted them. This is particularly true of the land of Canaan, which is located in
the crossroads of ancient civilizations.13 The Hebrew Bible calls the readers’ attention to the lands of
Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and Egypt, all of which figure prominently in the EP. The EP name the
dominant sociopolitical powers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. The general term other nations are
also referenced.14 Ancient Israel cannot be isolated from the historic stream of which it is a part.15
Isolating Israel from its historic stream has engendered views that serve as springboard for the
appropriation of the Hebrew Bible as a product of narrow interests within the society of ancient Israel.
This perspective highlights internal power play within Israel alone. Such approach dismisses the
importance of the broader context against which ancient Israel asserts its ideas. Further, it disregards
the fact that the Hebrew Bible, and the EP in particular, is a people’s literature. Indeed, the composition,
collection, canonization, and transmission of the Hebrew Bible were done in the context of foreign
domination. Historical studies have not given sufficient attention to the ramifications of imperialism in
ancient Israel’s history. The EP particu- rian [or interpreter] must attach equal importance to the
circumstances which gave these ideas their chance.” Christopher Hill, The Intellectual Origins of the
English Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University, 1965), 13; cited by Albert I. Baumgarten in The Flourishing
of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 23. 12 In Boyd and
Richerson’s opinion, “every bit of the behavior (or physiology or morphology, for that matter) of every
single organism living on the face of the earth results from the interaction of genetic information stored
in the developing organism and the properties of its environment.” Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson,
The Origin and Evolution of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 8. See also Rene Herrera
et al., eds., Genomes, Evolution, and Culture: Past Present, and Future of Humankind (New Jersey: Jon
Wiley, 2016). 13 William Hallo, “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach,” in
Scripture in Context Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B.
White (Pennsylvania: Pickwick, 1980), 12. 14 The number of times the names Assyria and Babylon are
mentioned in EP is an indication of preoccupation with Assyria and Babylon as empires. Babylon is
mentioned 31x in 2 Kings alone, 9x in Isa 1–39, and 168x in Jeremiah. Assyria is mentioned 46x from 2
Kgs 15–23 alone, and 42x in Isa 1–39. 15 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical
Interpretation— Principles and Problems: Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill,
1978), 326. 26 | A Filipino Resistance Reading larly were composed and edited at the time when Israel
was at the claws of ancient empires. Hence, its interpretation must take into consideration the pressures
that affected the life and the thought of Israel as a people. It is important to repeat that the biblical
writers were not writing for historical documentation per se but for the purpose of setting the
foundation and direction for the continuing life of a nation according to its faith, against relentless
imperial onslaught. The reconstruction of the ancient imperial context therefore provides the direction
towards understanding how ancient international politics affect everyday life and thinking in ancient
Israel. These include the religiocultural and the sociopolitical and economic structures of the ancient
Near East. Relevant analyses will help elucidate the impact of domination and subjugation on Israelite
societies. Rulers and Control Social classes developed in ancient societies as those who possessed power
and wealth were distinguished from those who lacked them. 16The experience and enjoyment of
economic surplus led rulers to seek to protect it. Hence the creation of bureaucracy and military forces
developed from centralized social structure.17 Taste of power and surplus of wealth whet the appetite
for more. The ancient civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia are products of the inordinate desire for
wealth and power by the ruling elite.18 Military build-up became a necessity to meet internal and
external threats and as instruments of expansion. The weak and smaller communities had no choice but
to submit or suffer annihilation. In the time of imperialism, the wealth of surrounding communities came
under the control of the powerful center. This has reverse effect, which is the impoverishment of the
masses.19 Farmers were reduced to serfdom as the state exacts goods from farmers in form of taxes for
the 16 Donald Kagan, Problems in Ancient History: The Ancient Near East and Greece. 2nd ed. (New
York: Prentice Hall, 1975), 6–7. 17 Ralph Turner, The Great Cultural Traditions, vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book, 1941), 284–85. 18 As Murnane says of the political development in Egypt, “As in Mesopotamia,
kingship seems to have developed around the figures of war leaders, in different protostates in the Nile
valley.” See William Murnane, “The History of Ancient Egypt: An Overview,” in Civilization of the Ancient
Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson (New York: Scribner’s, 1995), 4:693. 19 See Turner, Great Cultural
Traditions, 302. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East | 27 temple and the government. Some farmers lost
their lands because of unpaid debts and accumulated loan interests. Further, they were required to
render free labor as needed by the state. The law on private property in Mesopotamia protected the
interests of the privileged classes.20 Ancient Near East states were less a system of government than a
mechanism of control over the masses by the few to appropriate for themselves economic surplus.21
The Elites and Peasants In ancient imperial states, the aristocracies and the priestly classes were the
pillars that defended royal prerogatives. The masses had no means to defend themselves. As empires
expanded, the conditions favorable for economic and industrial growth allowed merchants to have a
share in surplus wealth. The merchants were a part of the royal officials.22 In the ancient Near East,
aristocratic families were the arms of the state in collecting taxes from the peasants.23 Estates
aggressively expanded, resulting in the loss of land among peasants who were reduced to slavery. This
contributed to the weakening of Assyria, as former free farmers lost their lands.24 The elites lived on
exacted surplus from the peasants who constituted the majority of the population. The Workers and
Slaves Most of the population in Mesopotamia and Egypt enjoyed a degree of freedom within the
bounds of social and state obligations. Free laborers did not have property and were employed by the
state as farmhands and laborers. Below them were the “subordinates” or “subalterns” who worked and
lived in the lands belonging to the king. They could be called on to bear arms. Freed slaves also belonged
to this lowly class along with the farm hands who were tied up with the royal and temple lands.25 With
the exception of the king’s officials and the artisans that catered to the needs of the bureaucratic class,
the majority of Egypt’s farming popula- 20 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 294. 21 Turner, Great
Cultural Traditions, 310. 22 Christopher Monroe, “Money and Trade,” in A Companion to Ancient Near
East, ed. Daniel Snell (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 163, 165. 23 George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light: The
Indispensible Guide to the Customs, Manners, and Idioms of Biblical Times (Cambridge: Harper & Row,
1964), 373. 24 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 295. 25 Samuel Greengus, “Legal and Social Institutions
of Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Sasson, Civilization of the Ancient Near East, 1:477. 28 | A Filipino
Resistance Reading tion lived difficult lives, toiling the king’s land like the slaves among them, except that
they were free.26 Agricultural workers were organized in the Egyptian Old Kingdom in units of five under
a leader who had the power to discipline them. These units were combined in bigger gangs.27 Egyptian
documents record that Rameses presented 113,000 slaves to the temples at the course of his reign.28
Slaves may have had the opportunity to free themselves. The skilled workers under imperial Egypt were
registered in guilds that were supervised by royal overseers. They, together with the chariotmakers,
enjoyed better living conditions than the ordinary workers.29 But like the rest of the workers, their
conditions were dependent on the state officials. Differentiated from the skilled workers, who largely
catered to the needs of the elite, were the urban workers. The free artisans sold their labor as a group
and received individual pay under their leader or overseer.30 Mario Levirani explains that the life
expectancy of peasants was twenty-five to thirty years due to malnutrition and low water quality. He
credits the impressive infrastructures of the ancient Near East to “forceful sourcing of food and
labour.”31 The pyramids were built through compulsory state labor.32 Herodotus estimates 100,000
laborers working on and off for twenty years were needed to complete such massive projects.33 One can
imagine that work accidents resulting in injuries and loss of lives were common occurrences. Sargon I of
Akkad (ca. 2500 BCE) first practiced large-scale slavery of subjugated peoples. As chattels, slaves had no
right over their person and bodies. The earliest slaves may have been war captives. When Egypt engaged
in imperial expansion, captives were taken and organized following the military structure. They were
branded and employed as workers. Assyria would later transport conquered people and enslave them.
As the 26 See also Jacquetta Hawkes and Leonard Woolley, Prehistory and Beginnings of Civilization
(New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 436, 468. 27 Hawkes and Woolley, Prehistory and Beginnings of
Civilization, 294. 28 Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1954), 159. 29 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 296–97. 30 Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, 159.
31 Mario Levirani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy, trans. Soraia Tabatabai (London:
Routledge, 1988), 24. 32 Junius P. Rodriguez, “Pyramid Construction,” in O–Z and Primary Documents,
vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion, ed. Junius P. Rodriguez (Westport, CT:
Greenwood, 2007), 400. 33 Rodriguez, “Pyramid Construction,” 400. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East |
29 demand for slaves increased, slaves were recruited or captured by raiding bands. Debtors and
children born to slaves further added to the ranks of slaves who constitute a significant portion of the
population of ancient imperial centers in Egypt and Babylon. Ancient Near East societies were mainly
stratified in two classes, the governed and those who governed. Underlying slavery as a state practice
was the drive for profit at the least cost. As kingdoms prospered, commerce and industry developed and
created wealth. The reverse effect was the maximization of human resources towards wealth
production, through the mechanism of slavery and labor requisition. Ideological propaganda clearly
played an important role in legitimizing the exploitative social structure.34 Where it failed, the military
coerced submission. Lacking knowledge and organization skills, the peasants were left at the mercy of
their overseers, the governing class, and on top of that, the imperial power. Successful revolts in the
history of the ancient Near East had been staged by subjugated states that had a standing army and
could muster reasonable military force. Revolts were launched in alliance with other subjugated states
such as the attempt of Israel and Aram against Assyria. To discourage rebellion, brutal and total
destruction of rebellious nations countered such attempts.35 Exile and resettlement policies were meant
to facilitate assimilation and destroy the identity and aspirations of conquered nations. Ancient Near
Eastern Empires and Nations The Egyptian Empire South of Israel, sustained by the Nile river, was the
Egyptian kingdom. Egyptian dynastic rule had continuously existed since 3200 BCE.36 Egypt’s great
pyramids attest to the technology and human power of this ancient nation. Regarded as a god, and god’s
son, the pharaohs had absolute power over both land and people. 34 See Peter Machinist, “Literature as
Politics: The Tikulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible,” CBQ 38 (1978): 455–82. Mordecai Cogan states of
Assyrian inscriptions, “Assyrian historical inscriptions are first and foremost ideological statements,
aimed at promulgating Assyrian imperial ideology.” See Mordecai Cogan, “Judah under Assyrian
Hegemony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion,” JBL 112 (1993): 406. 35 Marl Healy, The
Ancient Assyrians (London: Osprey Publishing, 1991), 8. See also Paul Bentley Kern, Ancient Siege
Warfare (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 74–76. 36 Charles Alexander Robinson Jr.,
Ancient History: From Prehistoric to the Death of Justinian, 2nd ed. (New York: MacMillan, 1951), 59. 30
| A Filipino Resistance Reading Military imperialism was adopted as a policy in the struggle to expel the
Hyksos in 1580 BCE, after a short-lived disruption of native Egyptian rule. Thus Ahmose I (1580–1557)
ushered the period of the New Kingdom (1580–1085).37 Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine served as a
buffer zone that secured Egypt. Palestine is closest to Egypt.38 At the height of its power under
Amenhotep III (1411–1375), Egypt’s territory included Northern Syria and Palestine and to the fourth
cataract in the south.39 Turmoil followed during the reign of Akhnaton/Ikhnaton (1375–1358), who
transferred the capital to Thebes. Akhnaton abandoned the imperial ambitions of the former rulers and
introduced a new religion in Egypt. This caused political fallout among the military and religious leaders.
Ramses II (1292–1225) revived the former imperial policies. Colossal buildings and monuments were
erected in his honor. By the time of Ramses III (1198–1167), Egypt had exhausted its military power and
resources. They were unable to drive away the Philistines who settled in the southern coast of Palestine.
After Ramses III’s death, the Libyans became dominant in the Egyptian kingdom.40 Egypt, the “enslaving
nation” in the collective memory of Israel, once more extended power over Syria and Palestine under
the leadership of Pharaoh Sheshonk (935–918) mentioned in 1 Kings 14:25–26.41 More than three
hundred years later, in an attempt to revive the policies of war and trade of the Old Kingdom, Necho II’s
father Psammatichus I rebelled against Assyria. It was Necho II of Egypt (609–594) who cut short the life
of Josiah, the king who was unequaled by any before and after him (2 Kgs 23:25). With the death of
Josiah, Judah once again was under Egypt. While Assyria was fighting for its survival, Judah its former
vassal state was caught between Egypt’s encroachment and the certainty of Babylonian incursions in the
south. The Mesopotamian Nations Ancient Mesopotamia extended from Syria, Turkey, and Iran to the
north, to Iraq and Kuwait to the Persian Gulf. Much of the land was sandwiched by 37 Robinson, Ancient
History, 73. 38 M. Rostovtzeff, A History of the Ancient World, trans. J. D. Duff, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1930), 75. 39 Robinson, Ancient History, 74. 40 Robinson, Ancient History, 82. 41 Luigi Pareti, Paolo
Brezzi, and Luciano Petech, eds., The Ancient World 1200BC to AD 500, vol. 2 of History of Mankind,
trans. Guy E. F. and Sylvia Chilver (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 12. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East
| 31 the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Since the third millennium BCE, Mesopotamian early populations
centers had centralized governments. The center of power shifted from time to time between Sumer in
the south, to Akkad, Mitanni, Assyria, and Anatolia in the north. Dynasties such as those of Kish, Uruk,
and Ur rose and fell. Centralized government emerged when city of Kish subjugated the formerly
independent city-states (ca. 2,500).42 The city of Lagash became one of the strongest states. By the time
of Sargon I (ca. 2334–2274),43 wars of aggression became the preferred strategy of protecting the
interests of the state.44 Expansion facilitated exchange of goods and knowledge. Defeated rulers
submitted and paid tribute. The threat posed by the violent mountain tribes against the established
Akkadian and Sumerian plain communities further pushed towards coalition of these relatively advanced
societies. As the most prosperous, the Sumerians were established as the dominant state. Towards the
end of the third millennium BCE, the Elamites took the place of Sumerians. At its decline, Babylon
became the center of power and held it throughout the first half of the second millennium BCE.45 It was
the Babylonians of the eighteenth century BCE that gave the present world the famous Hammurabi
code. The Hittites in Anatolia had their turn of supremacy in the sixteenth century BCE. Babylonian
power was restored in the time of King Nabopolassar, who was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar.
The Arameans At the time of the emergence of Israel, desert tribes from the Arabian desert south of
Mesopotamia were on the move. These wandering bands were found throughout Mesopotamia and
Syria by the middle of the fourteenth century BCE. These groups established the cities Kadesh,
Damascus, and Aleppo. The other coastal cities in Syria—Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos—also have connections
with the people in Mesopotamia.46 By their location these cities served as a melting pot of peoples
coming from the sea and the lands to the 42 Dominique Charpin, “The History of Ancient Mesopotamia,”
in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2:809. 43 The dates of the reigns of the kings in
Mesopotamia and Egypt coming from what Cryer calls high, middle, and low chronologies before the
first millennium are at best an educated guess because of conflicting records. See Frederick H. Cryer
“Chronology: Issues and Problems,” in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2:659–62. 44
Rostovtzeff, History of the Ancient World, 1:25–27. 45 Rostovtzeff, History of the Ancient World, 1:27–29.
46 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 238. 32 | A Filipino Resistance Reading northeast and the south. The
Phoenicians and the Habiru originated from southern Arabia.47 The Hittites and the Hurrians Mentioned
in Josh 1:4, what later became the Hittites were independent tribes who settled and ruled the
indigenous peasant population in Anatolia.48 King Labarna dominated rival chiefs. His son Hattusilis I led
an army that conquered Syria and the nearby kingdoms at the end of the seventeenth century BCE. The
succeeding King Mursilis I ended the Hammurabi dynasty in Babylon in 1585 BCE.49 With a superior
technology of smelting iron, the Hittites overran Egypt. Settled in upper Euphrates close to Assyria, the
Hurrians gained ascendancy in the first half of fifteenth century. To resist the Hurrians, the Hittites made
a peace treaty with Egypt. The Hurrians eventually dominated the smaller states in Syria that were under
the Hittites, but the dominance of the Hurrians did not last long.50 Between 1385–1345 BCE, a Hittite
king named Suppiluliumas dominated Syria.51 With Akhenaton in Egypt, the king extended his rule over
the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. When this kingdom weakened and eventually
disappeared, Phoenicia and the states south of Syria descended to chaos as kings fought for dominion
and loot. Egypt, who was in a state of turmoil, was unable to maintain its power over Simyra, Byblos,
Berytus, Tyre and Sidon, and Palestine.52 The Assyrians At the end of the Hittite and Hurrian
hegemonies, Assyria emerged as a strong state. Tiglath-pileser I subjugated Babylon in the eleventh
century.53 The new empire was on the rise. Conquest was a principal function of this 47 Turner, Great
Cultural Traditions, 239. 48 The term Amorites is sometimes confused with other nations in Syria
because Syria was the center of the Amorites civilization in fifth century BCE. Albert T. Clay says that the
Semitic Babylonians came from Amurru. See Albert T. Clay, The Origin of Biblical Tradition Hebrew
Legends in Babylonia and Israel (New Haven: Yale University, 1923), 30–31. 49 Hawkes and Wooley,
Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civilization, 387. 50 Hawkes and Wooley, Prehistory and the Beginnings
of Civilization, 389. 51 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 234. 52 Hawkes and Wooley, Prehistory and the
Beginnings of Civilization, 393. 53 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 240. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near
East | 33 state.54 Known for its military might, efficient communications, and transportation systems,
Assyria brought distant lands under its control. Its military government collected booty and imposed
tribute on surrounding nations. With sophisticated siege technology, it expanded Assyrian reach and
instilled fear among nations.55 By the eight century BCE, Assyria controlled Egypt, Anatolia, and
Mesopotamia. The Assyrian army is known for extreme cruelty and destructiveness and was feared by
enemies and subjects alike.56 Such a policy naturally bred hostility, which the Assyrians met with cruelty
and aggression. Ashurbanipal boasts in his annals of beheading, flaying, and dismembering the captive
king of Elam in a feast.57 Second Kings 17:5–6 mentions how Tiglath-pileser (744–727) dealt with the
Aramean coalition in the west of which Israel was a part. When Judah withheld tribute and resisted
Assyrian subjugation, the strategy of diplomacy, siege, then conquest, was employed against Jerusalem.
Stubbornly rebellious states were annexed as provinces.58 Resettlement was implemented against
rebellious states to destroy the identity and political aspirations of conquered peoples. This entailed a
wholesale deportation of indigenous population from Israel. People coming from other conquered
nations were resettled in Samaria. Sargon II (722–706 BCE) recounts his conquest of Samaria in these
words: I conquered them Samaria, taking 27,290 prisoners of war along with their chariots. I conscripted
enough from prisoners to outfit two hundred groups of chariots. The rest were deported to Assyria.… I
repopulated it 54 John Zhu-En Wee, “Assyria,” in Encyclopedia of World History, ed. Marsha E.
Ackermann et. al., vol. 1 (New York: Facts on File, 2008), 32, 34–35. See also Anthony Esler, The Western
World: A Narrative History Prehistory to the Present (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997), 13. 55
David Aberback states, “Assyria, by the late eight century, had built the most powerful empire in history
to date, over a hundred times larger than Judah, with the vast majority of the population under its rule.
It had the strongest army ever to be assembled and pioneered revolutionary techniques of warfare, for
example in the use of cavalry and the implement of siege—these would be used in the next two and a
half millennia.” See David Aberback, Imperialism and Biblical Prophecy 750–500 BCE (New York:
Routledge, 1993), 2. 56 Esler, Western World, 13–14. 57 Hawkes and Wooley, Prehistory and the
Beginnings of Civilization, 269. 58 Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy, trans.
Soraia Tabatabai (New York: Routledge, 1988), 485–87. See also Herbert Donner, “The Separate States of
Israel and Judah,” in Hayes and Miller, Israelite and Judean History, 417. 34 | A Filipino Resistance
Reading with people from other counties I conquered. I appointed one of my officials over them, and
made them Assyrian citizens.59 Assyria’s god Ashur sanctioned the exaltation of the power center and of
conquest.60 The king was considered the human representative of God. Hence, the worship of Ashur
served to rally its army towards imperial expansion. Assyrian relics depict a strongly masculine world,
where discipline, brute force, and toughness are valued. These are exemplified by the Assyrian military
monarchy.61 Assyria, supported by hundreds of thousands of fighters, reached the peak of its power in
the first half of the seventh century.62 A royal inscription proclaims that Sennacherib commanded
208,000 troops.63 They made an example of showing the fate of those who refuse to submit peacefully.
Ashurbanipal’s annals narrate: In strife and conflict I besieged (and) conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of
their fighting men with the sword. I carried off prisoners, ox (and) cattle from them. I burnt many
captives from them. I captured many troops alive. I cut off of some of their arms (and) hands; I cut off of
others their noses, ears, (and) extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the
living and one pile of the heads. I hung their heads on trees and 59 Victor H. Matthews and Don C.
Benjamin, The Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, rev. and expanded
(New York: Paulist, 2006), 129. 60 Of Ashur, Tiglath-pileser I says, “Ashur and the great gods, who made
my kingdom great, and who have bestowed might and power as a gift, commanded that I should extend
the boundary of their land.” Jack Fenigan, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of
the Hebrew-Christian Religion, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 170. 61 Duiker and
Spielvogel, World History, 37. A. P. Thornton says of imperialism, “[it] is something for men only. It molds
an entirely masculine world, whose keynote is stridency. In it the aggressive instinct holds, and must
keep, pride of place.… Whenever it arises, the aggressive instinct is sooner recognized than explained.”
A. P. Thornton, Doctrines of Imperialism (London: Wiley, 1965), 3. Francis Fukuyama noting that human
and chimpanzee genes are 99 percent similar observes the common aggression among male
Chimpanzee and male dominated societies. Fukuyama, Origins of Political Order, 323. 61 Duiker and
Spielvogel, World History, 37. 62 A. K. Grayson, “Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territories,” in Sasson,
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2:960. 63 Stephanie Dalley, “Ancient Mesopotamian Military
Organization,” in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1:418. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East |
35 around the city. I burnt their adolescent boys (and) girls. I razed, destroyed, burnt, (and) consumed
the city.64 Tiglath-pileser III tells of Menahem: … [As for Menahem I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snow-
storm] and he … fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my fee(?)]. I returned him to his place [and
imposed tribute upon him, to wit:] gold, silver, linen garments with multicolored trimmings … great … [I
re]ceived from him. Israel [lit.:“OmriLand” Bît Humria] … all its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to
Assyria. They overthrew their king Pekah [Pa-qa-ha] and I placed Hoshea [Aú-si’] as king over them. I
received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 (?) talents of silver and their [tri]bute and brought them to
Assyria.65 The prophet Nahum’s description of Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria, captures its essence,
“the bloody city, all full of lies and booty” (3:1). But its turn to receive aggression came. Towards the end
of the seventh century BCE, Assyria failed to defend itself against the onslaught of the nations that had
suffered at its hands. Chaldea was the center of Babylon, the emerging empire. However, Egypt in the
closing years of the seventh century was in a position to pose a challenge to the power of Babylon in
Palestine and Syria. The diminutive kingdom of Judah was caught between colliding empires. The defeat
of Pharaoh Necho II in 605 BCE in Carchemish brought the nations west of Mesopotamia, including
Palestine, under the control of Babylon. The Babylonians The Neo-Babylonian Empire (605–562 BCE) is
the most glorious period for Babylon as the capital of that empire. Archeological and historical records
attest to the wealth and glory of Babylon. But the Bible has a very negative view of the city instrumental
in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile. It is in Shinar (the location of the Tower of Babel in Gen
11:2) that the temple vessels were placed in the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god. Early into the
Babylonian rule, Jehoiakim (602 BCE), an Egyptian appointed king, rebelled. Judah’s rebellious stance
prompted Babylonian attacks that eventually reduced Jerusalem to ruins and sent its national and
religious leadership into exile. Nebuchadnezzar (also called Nebuchadrezzar) was as cruel as Assyrian
kings in the way he treated defeated nations. 64 Grayson, “Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territories,” 961.
65 James B. Pritchard ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1958), 194. 36 | A Filipino Resistance Reading The tributes he collected
mainly went into the building of his palace, decorating and building temples, and building
fortifications.66 The Persians Cyrus’s leadership of the Persian and Medes coalition ended the
Babylonian supremacy. It was the Persians who allowed the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem. Unlike
previous empires, Persia did not impose homogenization. Cyrus’s edict of restoration was in accordance
with the Persian imperial policy that managed cultural differences towards Persian interest.67 Smaller
Nation-States Surrounding Israel Coming from the sea, perhaps as a result of the destruction of
Mycenaean cities (1400–1200 BCE), the Philistines landed on the coast of Egypt. Dealing with the
Hittites, Egypt was not able to prevent the Philistines from settling on the coast of Palestine. But settlers
were also displacing the Hittites, even as the Medes and the Persians were settlers in northwestern
Mesopotamia.68 The breakdown of Egypt’s control in Syria-Palestine in the thirteenth to the ninth
century paved the way for the emergence of nation-states like Israel, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. A point
of contention between Israel and Ammon is the lot beyond the Jordan settled by Gileadites. Second
Kings 24:2 excoriates the participation of Ammon in the plunder of Jerusalem (also in Zeph 2:8–9).
Ammon was regarded as a relative by Israel together with Moab and Edom. The close affinity and conflict
between Jacob (Israel), Esau (Edom), and Lot (Moab and Amon) are the subject of several passages (Gen
25, 32:1–21). The Moabite Stone mentions that Moab was oppressed by Omri but was able to retake
Gad and put the Israelites to forced labor.69 Ruth, the main character of the book so-named, was a
Moabite. Earning the strongest censure from Israel for attacking them in their most vulnerable state after
leaving Egypt are the Amalekites. The Midianites, on the other hand, are depicted as traveling bands and
desert dwellers. The book of Judges tells of the Midianites oppressing the Israelites. However, Jethro,
who played an important role in introducing Yahwism to Israel, was a Midianite. 66 IBD 3, s.v.
“Nebuchadrezzar,” 529–30. 67 Michael Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction
to the Hebrew Scriptures (Oxford: University Press, 2006), 412. 68 Coogan, Old Testament, 237. 69
Matthews and Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels, 112. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East | 37 The
World(view)s of the Ancient Near East Temples led by priests and priestesses were at the heart of
established communities in Mesopotamia.70 Prehistoric religion was concerned with deities, nature, and
death. Fascinated with the benefits and destructive effects of nature, ancient religions delved into its
mystery.71 Those who appeared wise and knowledgeable about such mysteries became the first leaders.
Their advices and services were sought.72 The ancients’ understanding of reality was embodied in
rituals. Ancient religious rituals served to reconcile communities with the realities of life. Life is
celebrated in the commemorations of cyclical festivals, and death is accepted in the natural order of
things.73 In the naturally religious worldview of the ancient peoples, supernatural forces both good and
evil are presumed.74 Rituals relieve anxiety about the unknown and beyond what can be controlled.75
Designed and led by religious and political leaders, the rituals enacted worldviews. Eventually these were
established as social structures and norms. The earliest human social groups were bound by kinship and
were egalitarian.76 Independent communities led by assembly of free people 70 William H. McNeil, The
Rise of the West: A History of Human Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 33. 71
Åke Hultkrantz, “Religion before History,” in Introduction to World Religions, ed. Christopher Patridge
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 39–40. 72 Norman Yoffee, Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the
Earliest Cities, States and Civilization (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 41. Yoffee (following
Kantorowicz) states that religious leaders as “officiants of rituals came to possess institutionalized ‘body’
in addition to their human one … and thus became the chief symbols of the state’s sovereignty.” See also
McNiel, Rise of the West, 34–35. McNiel proposes that the ancient priest leaders were the first to enjoy
production surplus justified as requirements of deities. 73 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A
Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religions as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1978), 4–5; Fukuyama, Origins of Political Order, 38; Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 306.
See also Elizabeth C. Stone, “The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Sasson, Civilizations
of the Ancient Near East, 1:236. 74 Fukuyama, Origins of Political Order, 36; Henry Lucas, A Short History
of Civilization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book, 1953), 25. See also E. O. James, Prehistoric Religion: A Study
in Prehistoric Archeology (London: Thames & Hudson, 1957), 232–34. 75 Frankfort, Kingship and the
Gods, 4–5. Anthropologists Roy Rappaport and Emile Durkeim before him have solidly demonstrated the
positive function of rituals for human communities. 76 Fukuyama, Origins of Political Order, 54ff. 38 | A
Filipino Resistance Reading flourished in the vast plains of Mesopotamia.77 Early writings in ancient
Mesopotamia point to temporary appointment of leaders in times of emergency.78 However, the
challenge of living with the harsh realities of droughts and at times extreme flooding gave additional
push towards centralized organization.79 In a study of the archeological remains of temples and palaces,
Elizabeth Stone observes that palaces or government buildings and temples tend to be built separately,
suggesting a separation between the two institutions in earlier times. She also points to less stratified
society in the mixed residences of rich and poor population.80 As communities grew, resource and
border conflicts arise.81 In Mesopotamia the growth of cities gave rise to kingship as distinct from
temple leadership. Emerging as leaders in times of war, warrior leaders rose to power. They arrogated
judicial and religious prerogatives.82 Eventually they superseded the priests in power. Unequal progress
also entailed that some communities grew in power to subjugate others.83 City-states were formed from
the former independent communities.84 With warrior kings assuming religious function, autocratic rule
was established. Ideological supports for ascendant political and economic systems were produced.85
The standing army under the command of the king was conscripted. They protected the governing class
and carried out the king’s expansion plans.86 The production and preservation of literature were in the
hands of the governing class, who through scribal schools spon- 77 Thorkild Jacobsen, “Primitive
Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Journal of Eastern Studies 2 (1983): 159–72. Midlarsky notes that
in places where land is not so valued, egalitarian societies continued to exist. Manus I. Midlarsky, The
Evolution of Inequality: War, State Survival, and Democracy in Comparative Perspective (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999), 63. 78 McNiel, Rise of the West, 4; Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods,
219. 79 Marlies Heinz, “Sargon of Akkad: Rebel and Usurper in Kish,” in Presentation of Political Power:
Case Histories from the Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, ed. Marlies Heinz
and Maria H. Feldman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 79. 80 Stone, “Development of Cities in
Ancient Mesopotamia,” 248. 81 Midlarsky observes the appearance of fortified cities in 2800 BCE
connecting this with receding water level and the change in the course of the water channels. Midlarsky,
Evolution of Inequality, 63. 82 McNeil, Rise of the West, 4; Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 219. 83
Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 215–17. 84 Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 218. 85 Frankfort,
Kingship and the Gods, 229–30. 86 McNeil, Rise of the West, 43. 2. The Colonial Ancient Near East | 39
sored literature production.87 Literature in the ancient Near East was produced and preserved primarily
for the rulers’ purpose and benefit.88 In Egyptian lore, the Pharaoh was a central figure in Egyptian
religion. Ancient Egyptians believed that the first pharaoh came from the gods.89 In the Egyptian view,
the land derives its being from the creator Ptah “the Risen Land,” the fruitful earth that emerged from
the primeval chaos.90 Earliest Egyptian literature points to a time when Egypt was divided into two
lands, ruled by the sons of Osiris, Horus and Seth. It became one as Horus, the legitimate heir, overcame
“chaos”—Seth. In death, Osiris was embodied by Horus, his son and successor, and became a part of the
“ultimate reality.” His power and character continued to operate through the incumbent king for the
well-being of Egypt.91 The enactment of a generally accepted ideology facilitated the ascendancy of the
Old Kingdom in Egypt.92 For the purpose of bolstering the legitimacy of Egyptian rulers, the great
pyramids and colossal monuments of Egypt were built.93 The Eloquent Peasant, a narrative which
originated from the twelfth dynasty, also served to justify injustice. The Instructions to the King
Merykare to the Tenth Dynasty projects justice to be the main concern of kings.94 At his ascension,
Amenemhet I commissioned the Prophecy of Neferti, which presents him as a savior. Likewise, the story
of the Lord of the Two Lands portrays universal approval for the reigning ruler in Egypt.95 The Story of
Sinuhe justifies the harsh measures taken in defense of the ruling Egyptian family. These stories
reinforced the legitimacy of the reigning rulers. Records of religiously motivated revolution by the
oppressed class is absent in ancient Near East history.96 Akhenaton’s religious “revolution” was the “only
one revolution [albeit initiated by a king] in Egyptian histo- 87 Louis Lawrence Orlin, Life and Thought in
Ancient Near East (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 186. 88 Orlin, Life and Thought in
Ancient Near East, 188. Heinz, for example, details how Sargon of Akkad radically changed established
traditions in the institution of imperial rule. See Heinz, “Sargon of Akkad.” 89 Ronald J. Leprohon, “Royal
Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,
1:274. 90 Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 35. 91 Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 34. 92 Murnane,
“History of Ancient Egypt,” 695. 93 Murnane, “History of Ancient Egypt,” 696. 94 Murnane, “History of
Ancient Egypt,” 698. 95 Murnane, “History of Ancient Egypt,” 699. For their Assyrian counterpart, see
Bradley J. Parker, The Mechanics of Empire, Neo-Assyrian Corpus Project (Helsinki: University of Helsinki,
2001), 32. 96 Jon Manchip White, Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt (New York: Peter Bedrick, 1991), 162. 40
| A Filipino Resistance Reading ry.”97 Due to Akhenaton’s revolution, Egypt’s stability was shaken by
threats from the priestly and military groups. Akhenaton suppressed oppositions by force.98 The ensuing
civil unrest attests to the power of religion both as an instrument of political control and
destabilization.99 Similarly, no peasant revolt has been attested in Mesopotamia.100 The view that the
king was mandated by God to institute justice failed to translate to social norms. Though the law was
known to have come from the deity, no accepted moral principle upholds it.101 In Mesopotamia, even
Sennacherib was censured by the Assyrians when he destroyed Babylon’s religions. His son Esarhhadon,
in the process of consolidating his power, rebuilt Babylon. A propaganda text traced to this time called
the Sin of Sargon portrays Esarhhadon as the reconciler of Babylonian and Assyrian gods.102 During the
Neo-Babylonian period, Nabonidus’s preference of the worship of Sin over Marduk is believed to be the
reason for Nabonidus’s exile in Taima.103 The propagandistic nature of official records from ancient
Egypt and Mesopotamia has to be taken into consideration, and similarly with regard to Israel’s
literature.104 Ancient Near Eastern literature promotes the hegemonic worldview. It was the rulers’
interests that motivated the writing and preservation of the memory of the past. State-sponsored rituals
reconciled communities to existing sociopolitical and environmental reality.105 97 John Baines,
“Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimacy,” in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, ed. David Bourke, David
O’Connor, and P. Silverman (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 28. 98 Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 231–32. 99
Turner, Great Cultural Traditions, 230–31. 100 Marc Van De Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 35. 101 Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 278. 102 Erle
Leichty, “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,” in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2:952. 103 Aul-
Alain Beaulieu, “King Nabonidus and the Neo Babylonian Empire,” in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East, 2:975. 104 J. N. Postgate, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Summer and Akkad,” in
Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1:395. See also Levirani, Ancient East, 31. 105 Walter
Brueggemann, Redescribing Reality: What We Do When We Read the Bible (London: SMC, 2009), 2. See
also Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York:
Doubleday, 1967).