Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

350 Journal of Biblical Literature
several themes that emerge from an analysis of the wall-building narrative and that connect
it thematically to other parts of the Bible. There is a sense of God’s judgment
implicit in the reconstruction of the destroyed city and expressed through the use of key
terms such as h[r (misfortune) and hprj (reproach), as well as the idea of a new beginning
for the province of Yehud, which is also evident in the book of Ezra (p. 338). Furthermore,
the wall-building narrative appears to have been particularly well received by
the authors of Chronicles, who also report about successful building projects and make
use of the same characteristic combination of the key terms hnb (build) and jlx (succeed;
p. 339). The Nehemiah-memorial, on the other hand, which shows Nehemiah as
closely linked to the lower priestly classes and critical of the aristocratic leadership, finds
resonance in texts that are strongly Torah oriented, such as the legal texts of the Pentateuch
as well as the postexilic redaction of prophetic texts (p. 330; for a convenient list of
intertextual links, see pp. 342–43). This Torah-oriented focus, Reinmuth suggests, also
dominates the redaction of the Nehemiah narrative as a whole, which likely took place
in the late Persian period (pp. 346–47). The Nehemiah tradition was then preserved and
perpetuated by priestly rather than prophetic groups, and traditio-historical links to
such books as Third Isaiah or Malachi cannot be convincingly supported, as has been
proposed in particular by Kellermann.
Methodologically, Reinmuth’s study is characterized by the analysis of key words
and their function in Nehemiah and other biblical texts. The use of language (Sprachgebrauch)
in its syntactical, semantic, and structural aspects (p. 19) is central to his reading
of the text. Nevertheless, Reinmuth’s general orientation is decidedly diachronic, as
one would expect from a study concerned with the redaction of sources and the history
of traditions. A significant theoretical influence with regard to exegesis is Odil Hannes
Steck (Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik [12th ed.; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989]), who emerges as a leading voice in Reinmuth’s discussion
of new approaches to literary criticism (pp. 25–28). Also noted are James A.
Sanders on canonical criticism (Canon and Community [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984])
and Michael Fishbane on intertextuality and tradition criticism (Biblical Interpretation
in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985]). He occasionally refers to synchronic
approaches to biblical narrative, such as studies by Tamara Eskenazi, Meir Sternberg, or
D. J. A. Clines, but otherwise he makes relatively little use of what is generally identified
as new literary criticism among English-speaking scholars.
Reinmuth’s book has a certain commentary-like quality. He reads the texts that are
considered for his analysis sequentially in exegetical units in the order in which they
appear in the book, rather than grouped in two categories according to his division of
sources into wall-building narrative and memorial composition. The advantage to this
approach is that it presents a sharper contrast between the two compositional units by
highlighting the stylistic and rhetorical ruptures in the narrative, lending greater force to
Reinmuth’s two-source theory. Each exegetical unit contains a working translation with
text-critical notes; an analysis of its structure, style, and use of language; an examination
of its reception and its place in the history of traditions; and a concluding interpretation
of the passage with regard to its significance within its respective compositional source.
There is also a discussion of Neh 3:1–32 and 10:31–40, which Reinmuth does not consider
to be part of either the wall-building narrative or the memorial composition but
which provide exegetical cohesion and the opportunity to develop ideas about the roster