Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Book Reviews
of people involved in the construction of the wall and about the relationship between
Nehemiah’s reforms and the development of Torah respectively. Only the list of
returnees in Neh 7 (cf. Ezra 2) and the material dealing with Ezra and the covenantrenewal
ceremony in Neh 8:1–10:30 are not included in Reinmuth’s study. On two occasions
the sequential reading is interrupted by chapters dealing with specific intertextual
relationships and that represent perhaps some of the most interesting explorations in
this book, since they examine specific instances of the traditio-historical connection
between Nehemiah and the legal and prophetic traditions of the Hebrew Bible. The
first of these intertextual comparisons looks at the issue of the remission of debt and the
problem of debt-slavery in Neh 5 in relation to Lev 25, Deut 15, and Jer 34 (pp. 160–
82). A close reading of these texts and their use of key vocabulary suggests, according to
Reinmuth, that Neh 5 represents a positive foil for Jer 34, where the same problem of
social injustice prompts Jeremiah to issue an oracle of doom. Furthermore, Lev 25
appears to presuppose Neh 5, suggesting that Nehemiah’s reforms had a significant
impact on postexilic legislation (p. 182; cf. pp. 218–19). The second intertextual exploration
examines Isa 58:12; 61:4; Amos 9:11, 14; and Mic 7:11 with regard to the idea that
the building of the wall in Nehemiah represents the fulfillment of postexilic prophecy
(pp. 234–46). As mentioned earlier, Reinmuth argues that the evidence for such an idea
is inconclusive, further supporting his claim that the traditio-historical impact of
Nehemiah is to be found in priestly and legislative rather than prophetic circles.
Reinmuth’s analysis raises some significant sociological questions. It is perhaps all
the more surprising that this book offers very little discussion of social-scientific categories
or theories, a discourse that has been very prominent in other recent studies of
Persian-period literature. This disparity between broad sociological conclusions and
fairly narrow literary evidence is perhaps one of the more problematic aspects of this
study. Similarly, his use of synchronic data (key terms, use of language, etc.) to support
diachronic conclusions about composition, redaction, and tradition is not without its difficulties.
Although Reinmuth’s critiques are apt and relevant, especially his assessment
of Kellermann’s work, and his suggestions certainly intriguing and often quite plausible,
he relies too heavily on the presence or absence of key terms or term clusters to provide
a solid foundation for his larger conclusions. As a result, the intertextual links he seeks to
establish often appear somewhat overstated. One may wonder, for example, if he is not
reading too much into the implication of the occurrence of such terms as hnb and jlx or
the installing (dm[) of reforms. Even on a larger, thematic level, his judgments appear
occasionally too strong for the evidence at hand. Are two negative portrayals of Solomon
(Neh 13:18, 26) enough to suggest that the text is implicitly rejecting any possible hopes
for the reestablishment of monarchic rule in Judah (cf. p. 345)? Even though this idea is
in itself quite probable, and also expressed by other studies, more evidence would have
been desirable to support such a claim. Similarly, a more thorough sociological investigation
of such concepts as Torah or prophecy would have been appropriate to
strengthen an otherwise purely internal body of evidence. Finally, this study would benefit
from a more explicit distinction between the figure of Nehemiah according to the
text and the figure of Nehemiah himself. While Reinmuth’s arguments do not hinge on
the historicity of Nehemiah, his assumption that at least the wall-building narrative is
probably an eyewitness report by the governor of Yehud himself is not necessarily helpful.
Suggestions that the roster of people who participated in the construction was a lit-
351