96 JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP ideology was the establishment and maintenance of fixed and clear boundaries impermeable to cultic or ritual adulteration, and for this to happen the control of marriage, by violent means if necessary, was essential. The Aaronids were, on the one hand, remarkably liberal in their attitude to the resident aliens (gērîm) who were to be treated in all respects like the native born (’ezraḥîm). But quite transparently the point was to integrate this category of the “dubiously belonging” into the community with a view to removing the taint of dubiety. On the other hand, at least from the early or middle years of Persian rule, the attitude to the foreigner (nokrî, ben-nēkār) was decidedly xenophobic, especially so with those with historic ties to Judaeans, or with those who were seen to pose a threat of contamination by their close proximity and the numerous forms of social interchange to which it gave rise. As noted, this applied especially to Idumaeans (“Midianites”), Samarians and Transjordanians, including descendants of those Moabites, contact with whom was so violently repudiated at Baal Peor. A concluding observation: It is paradoxical that during the long period from Persian rule to the advent of the Romans the principal obstacle to the implementation of this ideal of ritual segregation enforced by prohibition of intermarriage came from the priesthood itself. We hear Nehemiah complaining that by establishing marital and commercial alliances with the Sanballats and Tobiads the high priests Eliashib and Joiada had “defiled the priesthood” (Neh 13,4-9.28-30). The roughly contemporary prophet known as Malachi had equally harsh things to say about contemporary temple priests including those who had married “the daughter of a foreign god” (Mal 2,11 – shades of Baal Peor!). Josephus records that Manasseh, brother of the high priest Jaddua, entered into a mariage de convenance with Nikaso daughter of a later Sanballat (Ant 11:302-312). He adds somewhat later that “many priests and Levites were involved in such marriages” (Ant. 11:312). Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander, reports in similar fashion: As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he [Moses] saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other people. But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with people of other nations [...] many of their traditional practices were disturbed 18. “noble courage of soul” (Sir 45,23-25). Then there were Josephus’ Zealots (zēlōtai) during the rebellion against Rome. On the broader ethical implica- tions of this zeal see J.J. COLLINS, “The Zeal of Phineas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence”, JBL 122 (2003) 3-21. 18 Text in M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem 1976) I, 27, 29.