Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Book Reviews
Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung
und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias, by Titus Reinmuth. OBO
183. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 2002. Pp. xiii + 381. €51.80. ISBN 3727813776.
Reinmuth begins his study by noting that, despite other positive developments in
the field of Persian-period studies, Nehemiah has not attracted much attention in recent
years: “Um Nehemia ist es still geworden” (p. 1). To some extent, this apparent neglect
can be explained on the basis of more general hermeneutical shifts within Second Temple
studies away from concerns with individuals and their achievements toward social
structures or constitutive elements in the religious and political infrastructure of Persian
Yehud. Perhaps especially the “perils of autobiography” associated with the first-person
narrative of Nehemiah have elicited caution rather than confidence with respect to our
ability to reconstruct information about specific historical persons and the texts associated
with them. Thus, Reinmuth’s book is virtually the first comprehensive study of the
Nehemiah narrative since Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und
Geschichte (BZAW 102; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), and indeed Kellermann represents
an important conversation partner for Reinmuth throughout his book. As such, Reinmuth
is to be commended for addressing a topic that has been dormant for over thirty
years. On the other hand, one may perhaps wonder why such a study is conducted now
and how it is situated among the more recent approaches to biblical literature from the
Persian period.
The goal of this book is twofold: a definition of the extent, form, and content of the
Nehemiah narrative itself and an analysis of its reception within the larger history of tradition
(p. 2). Central to this project is Reinmuth’s thesis, following H. G. M.
Williamson’s proposal of a two-stage composition of the Nehemiah-source (Ezra,
Nehemiah [WBC; Waco: Word, 1985], xxiv–xxviii), that the first-person narrative associated
with Nehemiah consists of two distinct sources. Specifically, Reinmuth suggests a
narrative about the construction of the wall (Mauerbau-Erzählung—wall-building narrative;
Neh 1:1–4:17; 6:1–7:5; 12:27–43) and a memorial composition (Nehemia-
Denkschrift—Nehemiah-memorial; Neh 5:1–19; 13:4–31). Both compositions share the
use of the first-person narrative voice, as well as a few key terms or themes such as hprj
(reproach; 1:3; 2:17; 3:36; 4:13; cf. 5:9; 6:13) or the installing (dm[) of reforms (4:3, 7;
7:3; 13:11, 19), but differ more substantially in style, grammar, vocabulary, and orientation.
The wall-building narrative exhibits a greater degree of literary coherence, while
the texts of the Nehemiah-memorial, characterized by the repeated use of the verb rkz
(remember) relate events that are not necessarily thematically connected. Reinmuth
posits that the wall-building narrative is the older of the two sources, composed during
the governorship of Nehemiah (i.e., contemporary to the events it narrates), while the
memorial was written after his activity during the last decades of the fifth century
(p. 336). Furthermore, the two compositions are said to reflect different sociohistorical
settings. The wall-building narrative relates a collaborative effort involving the aristocratic
and political leadership of Jerusalem as well as the temple priests and the people.
The Nehemiah-memorial reflects a conflict between Nehemiah, the peasant population,
and the lower priestly and Levitical groups, on the one hand, and the aristocracy
and political leaders, on the other (pp. 335–36).
Regarding a traditio-historical evaluation of the texts at hand, Reinmuth points to
349