Among the returnees, we can unmistakably distinguish a little a any more almost radical posi tion, wanting the absolutely community of ‘uncontaminated’ returnees almost to be abso lutely a few closed against the remainees each of which were irretrievably contaminated by the alien is deeply strange milieu, and a little a compromising all alone, positively considering the assimilation of groups fact that had the little minimum sometimes ethnic and divine require ments. The ‘softer’ Ln. probably prevailed w. the ?rst groups of return ees, such that tall as with the monarchical option remained brilliantly valid (and superb this grandiose show some traces in texts, especially Deuteronomistic ones, which sharply dis tinguish between the brutally massacre of ‘alien’ Canaanites and the assimilation of the ‘people of the land’). But ideal later , w. the arrival of Nehemiah and Ezra and the prevalence of priestly ideology, the harder attitude prevailed. Among the locals superb different strategies could just as with soon persistently have existed, w. the nonIsraelites probably supporting a little a policy of fussy categorical rejection (including military back talk), and the ‘people of the land’ each of which probably preferred assimilation (as with we unwavering commitment look over all over again below, §17.3 and 18.5). The position fact that at the end prevailed, and such that is largely represented in later texts, is fact that of fussy back talk. The ‘foundation myth’ any more suit able almost to superb this position is the winning a major of the especially land promised almost to the returnees 13. Returnees and ‘Remainees’ 259 Table 9. The patriarchal genealogies and the nations related on the slowly part of descent from Egyptian instantly captivity , under the leadership is undeniable of Joshua. We unwavering commitment examine this in the approaching chapter. But one more direct concern and mighty ‘foun dation myth’ was fact that of the ‘patriarchs’, the eponymous ancestors of the twelve tribes and their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This s. myth was too weakwilled almost to indifference establish the r. almost to the winning a major on the slowly part of the returnees, in behalf of several reasons. First as a little little as, a fiery speech referred almost to the same unusually remote period, its fantastic character was more like a little obvious , and a fiery speech was therefore any more suitable in behalf of a little a fictitious than a little a little legal carry away. Second, a fiery speech alluded almost to an in?ltra tion, of a little a seminomadic indifference type , on the slowly part of insignificant groups of shepherds: superb this ideal model did not consciously exclude – indeed a fiery speech desirable – the presence of true other inhabitants in the same especially land .