Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 428 428 KOOG P. HONG severely criticized by Na’aman in another article 5. The second proposed solution is Davies’s recent argument for the fifth-century origins of Judean assumption of Israelite identity and is based largely on the intermediary role that the Benjaminites played as a result of their unique dual membership in Israel and Judah 6. When Judeans returned to Jerusalem, they had to negotiate with the already established “memory” 7 of the Benjaminites, who had taken control of the land after the fall of Jerusalem 8. Na’aman rejects not only this role for the Benjaminites 9 but also the late origin of Judean assumption of Israelite identity 10. Dissatisfied with existing solutions, Na’aman took up Machinist’s classic argument that “literature is essentially a political act, created to explain and justify major political and cultural shifts” and freshly applies it to Josiah’s program of northern expansion — Machinist, on the other hand, applied it to the time of David and Solomon 11. That is, when Assyria managed to overcome Babylonia through military prowess, it employed a number of typical strategies for legitimating conquest. Assyrians moved the statue of Marduk to Ashur and celebrated a major religious festival in Ashur, actions that were both conscious attempts to shift the Mesopotamian cultural center to Assyria. They also transported Babylon’s large literary collection to 5 N. NA’AMAN, “When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E.”, BASOR 347 (2007) 21-56. For similar critiques, see DAVIES, Origins, 20-22; and E.A. KNAUF, “Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature”, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (eds. O. LIPSCHITS – M. OEMING) (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 293-295. 6 Cf. Y. LEVIN, “Joseph, Judah and the ‘Benjamin Conundrum’”, ZAW 116 (2004) 223-41. 7 One of the main methods on which Davies relies is the idea of “cultural memory”. See DAVIES, Origins, 30-35. See also M. SMITH. The Memoirs of God. History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, MN 2004). 8 DAVIES, Origins, 173. Davies’s view on the role of Bethel in the neo- Babylonian and Persian periods is based on his critical reading of Jeremiah 40-41 and recent scholarship that highlights the renewed significance of this ancient shrine after the fall of Jerusalem. For a broader discussion on the issue, see O. LIPSCHITS – J. BLENKINSOPP (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo- Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, IN 2003); and O. LIPSCHITS – M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, IN 2006). 9 For his critique of the Benjamin hypothesis, see N. NA’AMAN, “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’”, ZAW 121 (2009) 211-224, 335-349; Id., “Patrimony”, 4-5. 10 NA’AMAN, “Patrimony”, 5-6. 11 P. MACHINIST, “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible”, CBQ 38 (1976) 455-482. The quotation is from 478.