The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http://www.jhsonline.org and http://purl.org/jhs Articles in JHS are being indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, RAMBI, and BiBIL. Their abstracts appear in Religious and Theological Abstracts. The journal is ar- chived by Library and Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection site maintained by Library and Archives Canada (for a direct link, click here). VOLUME 7, ARTICLE 12 GARY N. KNOPPERS, (ED.), REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA- NEHEMIAH: IN CONVERSATION WITH JACOB WRIGHT’’S REBUILDING IDENTITY: THE NEHEMIAH MEMOIR AND ITS EARLIEST READERS (BZAW, 348; BERLIN: DE GRUYTER, 2004) 1 2 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA- NEHEMIAH: IN CONVERSATION WITH JACOB WRIGHT’’S REBUILDING IDENTITY: THE NEHEMIAH MEMOIR AND ITS EARLIEST READERS (BZAW, 348; BERLIN: DE GRUYTER, 2004) GARY N. KNOPPERS, ED. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 1. Gary N. Knoppers, Introduction 2. Deirdre N. Fulton, A Response: In Search of Nehemiah’’s Re- form(s) 3. David M. Carr, A Response 4. Ralph W. Klein, A Response 5. Jacob L. Wright, Looking Back at Rebuilding Identity REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH 3 INTRODUCTION GARY N. KNOPPERS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PA It is a real pleasure, as a guest editor of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, to introduce the following series of reviews of Dr. Jacob L. Wright’’s re- cently published book, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW, 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). Dr. Wright is an assistant professor of Hebrew Bible at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. A special session of the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah section was held at the national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2006 (Washington, DC) to honor, discuss, and evaluate Jacob’’s monograph, a revised and updated version of his dissertation at the University of Göttingen (written under the direction of Professor Reinhard G. Kratz). The same special session at the 2006 Society of Biblical Literature meeting also featured a series of collegial reviews of Melody D. Knowles’’ Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practices of Yehud and the Diaspora in the Persian Period (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). The reviews of this work (and Professor Knowles’’ response) were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (vol. 7, 2007). Readers are encouraged to read both sets of reviews not only be- cause both books deal with Ezra-Nehemiah, but also because the scholarly discussions about these books provide a useful introduction to current debates about the application of various forms of literary and historical criticism to the biblical text. In the case of Wright’’s book, its focus is on the compositional history of the Nehemiah memoir. In examining this complicated issue, Wright also deals with the composi- tion of other parts of Ezra-Nehemiah. Hence, his book contains many observations about the ways in which different sections of the biblical book may relate (or fail to do so) to each other. In the discussion of Wright’’s views, some of the contributors (and Wright, as well) revisit the relationship of the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah to that of the Apocryphal (or Deutero-canonical) book of First Esdras (Esdras (cid:417)). I wish to extend my thanks both to Professor Tamara Eskenazi of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (Los Angeles) for suggesting this special session and to the chair of the Chronicles- Ezra-Nehemiah section of the Society of Biblical Literature, Professor Christine Mitchell of St. Andrew’’s College (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) for all of her diligent work in helping to organize this special sympo- sium. Special thanks also go to each of the reviewers: Ms. Deirdre N. 4 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES Fulton, a graduate student at Penn State University (University Park, PA); Professor David M. Carr of Union Theological Seminary (New York); and Professor Ralph W. Klein of the Lutheran School of Theol- ogy at Chicago for their willingness to revise and publish their detailed reviews in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. Finally, I would like to thank Professor Jacob Wright for his informative and extensive response to the reviewers’’ comments. Readers should be aware that the following reviews and authorial response were originally given in an oral setting. As a guest editor, I asked the reviewers to revise their works for publication, but I did not ask them to convert their works into formal articles with extensive documentation, footnotes, and so forth. This means that the responses still retain some of the stylistic characteristics of reviews delivered in an originally oral setting. To be sure, reviewers were allowed to add any footnotes that they deemed helpful for readers to understand the con- text, force, and setting of their evaluations, but the decision whether to do so was left to the discretion of the individual participants. In closing, it is appropriate to express our many thanks to the edi- tor of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Professor Ehud Ben Zvi of the University of Alberta (Edmonton) for his willingness to create a pro- ductive context for pursuing cross-disciplinary conversations among scholars by publishing this collection of reviews, as well as the response to those reviews by Professor Wright. In this context, it is also fitting to express a special word of thanks to the family of Terry Butler. He han- dled many of the electronic logistics for the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures over the course of the past decade. He was instrumental in ensuring that the rise of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures went as smoothly as possi- ble. His fine work served the interests of many contributors, who were much less proficient in internet publishing than he was. His wonderful work on behalf of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures is much appreciated and his untimely death is much to be mourned. This collection of essays is dedicated to his good memory. REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH 5 A RESPONSE: IN SEARCH OF NEHEMIAH’’S REFORM(S) DEIRDRE N. FULTON THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY The composition of Ezra-Nehemiah has become a significant area of research within biblical studies in recent years. Jacob Wright’’s mono- graph, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers, is a noteworthy contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the composi- tion of both Ezra and Nehemiah. His work employs literary and source- critical models for the purpose of understanding the process of the construction of Nehemiah. In this review, I will address the methodo- logical framework underlying Wright’’s study and outline his reconstruction of the composition of the book of Nehemiah.1 I will also make some comments on the textual criticism of Ezra-Nehemiah and how the discipline of textual criticism may intersect with the disci- plines of source criticism and redaction criticism as practiced by Wright in his recent book. Wright’’s detailed examination of Nehemiah develops out of two areas of study: earlier source-critical models for considering the chrono- logical sequence of the composition of the work and literary-critical models for considering the final form of the book. Wright acknowl- edges the methodological contributions of earlier scholars, such as W. Zimmerli and O. H. Steck2 to his study of Ezra-Nehemiah (p. 4). His work also follows on the heels of the studies undertaken by his Dok- torvater, Reinhard Kratz, most notably Kratz’’s important work, The Composition of the Narrative of the Old Testament,3 which examines the com- positional history of Ezra-Nehemiah, as well as those of several other individual historical books found within the Hebrew Bible. Wright be- gins by examining the need for a literary-critical analysis of the material in question and proceeds to focus on a source-critical and redaction- critical analysis of Nehemiah 1-13. In his study, Wright proposes to 1 I would like to thank Gary Knoppers, Tamara Eskenazi, and Christine Mitchell for inviting me to participate in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah ses- sion at the 2006 Society of Biblical Literature. 2 See W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (2 vols.; Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983); O. H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik——ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989). 3 R. G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative of the Old Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2005), which is John Bowden’’s translation of R. G. Kratz, Die Kom- position der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). 6 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES establish several successive layers in the development of the Nehemiah memoir. Reminiscent of the model of excavating various layers of an archaeological tell, Wright uses archaeological terminology to excavate the history of the text and present his source-critical findings to modern readers. His goal is to uncover and explain the various strata that may be discerned in the complex growth of the biblical text. He concludes that the creation of the Nehemiah memoir was a ““process (a creatio con- tinua), rather than a static entity consisting of sources that have been shaped and molded according to the providential plan of one (or two) editor(s). The literary process in Ezra-Neh was initiated by the composi- tion of Nehemiah’’s report and continued by generations of active readers”” (p. 330). In some older models of source criticism, the book of Nehemiah was thought to contain many different sources that were strung to- gether, placed in sequence, and eventually edited by one or more writers/redactors. In Wright’’s investigation, the source--critical history of Nehemiah is a much more complicated process. Individual layers in the history of the composition of the book themselves became sources that subsequent writers (re)interpreted and (re)edited. Moreover, such later writers added their own material to the layers of material contrib- uted by earlier writers. Each of these writers addressed the issue of identity by focusing on a certain issue, such as the rebuilding of Jerusa- lem’’s wall, the rebuilding of the temple, overcoming local opposition, the restoration of Judah, and so on. Hence, Wright argues that through several intentional additions to the Nehemiah memoir, the text devel- oped and grew substantially over a long period of time. The literary process of composition, interpretation, and redaction, reinterpretation, re-editing, and further composition began in the Persian period and continued well into the Hellenistic period. Wright’’s book is divided into four sections: I. In Susa (pp. 7-66); II. From Susa to Jerusalem (pp. 67-188); III. Additional Reforms during the Work on the Wall (pp. 189- 269); IV. The Dedication of the Wall and the Formation of a New Cli- max (pp. 271-339). Within these four sections, Wright lays out the themes found in Nehemiah and examines individual texts, placing them into both the topical context and the chronological sequence in which they were composed. To assist the reader in understanding his argument, Wright provides a summary chart that outlines his proposed seven major layers of the composition of Nehemiah. In his source-critical and composi- tional analysis, Wright envisions three significant redactional periods. Although this summary is helpful for understanding how Wright envi- sions the composition of Nehemiah, it should be noted that throughout the book Wright presents a more complex process of the composition of Nehemiah than his final summary details. That is, there are additions to layers, as well as several texts that by Wright’’s own admission do not fit neatly within the several strata that he reconstructs. In the course of his study, Wright attempts to piece together the various intentions that motivated the additions to the original composi- tion of Nehemiah (reflected in the first stratum). The first REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH 7 compositional layer of Nehemiah, which is fairly brief, begins with the first person account of Nehemiah’’s request to Artaxerxes and consists of Nehemiah’’s wall-building account found in several verses (and parts thereof) in chapters 1-2, as well as in 3:38, 6:15. Wright employs a form- critical analysis, when examining the contours of the original building report. The work done investigating the contours of this original build- ing report is perhaps the most substantive form-critical analysis found in the monograph. Wright’’s second stratum is combined with the first-person account from stratum 1, as well as with new material comprising the register of builders. His second stratum ties together the record of builders present in 3:1-32 and other minor additions added to chapter 2. With the addi- tion of this pro-Priestly material, the focus of rebuilding shifts away from the walls, which was the concern of the original Nehemiah mate- rial, and turns to the temple. In Wright’’s third stage of composition, other texts are added to assert ““the positive implications of the building project by way of the negative reactions of the enemy; characterized by the use of the (cid:51)(cid:47)(cid:60)-formula”” (p. 340). This material may be found in several scattered verses, particularly in chapters 2-6. In stratum 4, specific texts found in chapters 2, 5, and 6 refer to Nehemiah as governor. These materials were inserted into the story to depict Nehemiah as the great builder of Jerusalem. The writer of this stage in the growth of the Nehemiah memoir employed the motif of the ““relentless builder,”” for which Wright finds extra-biblical parallels in several building inscriptions in the ancient Near East (e.g., Assyrian texts and Neo-Babylonian texts involving Nebuchadnezzar I and Nab- onidus) that reflect similar themes (p. 137). With the addition of Nehemiah 5, the attention of the memoir shifts away from simply being a building report to being a report on Judah’’s restoration. Hence, in stratum 5 one finds that the Nehemiah memoir has been augmented yet again. The focus is now on ““extramural reforms,”” characterized by the use of the (cid:33)(cid:58)(cid:41)(cid:36) prayers. In this phase, Wright argues that the account stops focusing on building and turns into a story of the restoration of Yehud. Stratum 6 of Wright’’s proposed reconstruction contains additions that relate to the (re)population and dedication of the city. Incidentally, these texts presuppose, in the author’’s reconstruction, the addition of Ezra 1-6 to the expanded text. Finally, Wright completes his analysis of the primary layers of Nehemiah with his final (seventh) stratum, which draws attention to the struggle between the temple and the Torah (p. 340). In reconstructing each of these layers, Wright considers evidence from the book of Ezra and whether material in Ezra comes before, simultaneous with, or after layers in Nehemiah. Such cross-references to the composition of Ezra aid the reader in clarifying how Wright views the overall compositional process leading to the emergence of the entire Ezra-Nehemiah corpus. Rebuilding Identity is a carefully-written and meticulous study. Wright carefully surveys where each text should be placed, paying close attention to patterns, parallels, and specific phrases in order to organize the material into a larger coherent model, which reflects his analysis of the composition of Nehemiah. There are, however, certain passages 8 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES that do not align with Wright’’s broad interpretation of the context of Ezra-Nehemiah. Consequently, these verses do not appear to be in- cluded in any of his seven primary layers. For example, the reader is left wondering where he places large sections of material, such as Neh 11:4- 25, within his greater literary scheme. Wright notes that the composi- tion(s) of the lists in 11:3-12:26, in particular, are difficult to place in a chronological context, but he does argue that 12:1-26 was inserted into stratum 7. This brings up the larger issue of textual criticism and how text- critical analysis may or may not relate to source-critical and redaction- critical methods. Since there are clear discrepancies present in the LXX and MT versions of Neh 11:12-12:9, it would be helpful to address these textual discrepancies and examine how they fit (or do not fit) into Wright’’s broader reconstruction. Additionally, a text-critical analysis of Neh 3:34-37, found in Wright’’s stratum 3, might also benefit his overall study. This stratum consists of several insertions that present a positive picture of Nehemiah’’s building project (including 3:34-37). Wright comments that 3:34-37b is particularly problematic, because it contains material with different agendas. In 3:34a, Sanballat, ““spoke before his brethren and the host of Samaria,”” but in 3:37b the (MT) text states, ““they provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders”” and thus provides a competing context for Sanballat’’s antagonistic behavior (p. 117). Wright believes that verse 34a is a later gloss. It is important to note, however, that verse 37b is not present in the LXX, thereby bring- ing to the fore the question of his conclusion that verse 37b is older than verse 34a. In one context, Wright does acknowledge that there is MT material lacking in the LXX. He observes that 3:38 is not present in the LXX, but adds that this is because of inter-textual discrepancies. The LXX translator does not ““transmit 3:38,”” because of the ““confusion created by the composition of 4:1-6:14”” (p. 122). If Wright’’s idea that the LXX writer omitted material in order to avoid contradictions, then perhaps he would also see a similar factor at work in why (MT) 3:37b does not appear in the LXX.4 In addressing differences among the various witnesses to the bibli- cal text, it should be noted that most text-critical differences between the MT and the LXX arise from accidents in the transmission of the text, such as haplography, parablepsis, dittography, transposition (me- tathesis), and so on.5 This is not to rule out the possibility of a tendentious addition here and there in either the tradition represented by MT or the tradition represented by the LXX. Tendentious omissions are, however, relatively rare. My point is that an analysis of the text- critical issues that are present in LXX and MT Nehemiah would help elucidate (and perhaps complicate) certain aspects of Wright’’s proposal for a long history in the composition of Nehemiah. Traditionally, tex- tual criticism has been seen as foundational to other kinds of literary 4 One of his comments on the text in question on p. 117 (n. 86) points in this direction. 5 E. Tov, The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3; Jerusalem: Simor. 1981) and idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001). REVISITING THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH 9 criticism (source criticism, redaction criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, etc.). The establishment of a text (earliest and best) from sev- eral different witnesses is pivotal to analyzing the literary-critical dimensions of such a text. In some cases (e.g., MT Jeremiah, LXX Jeremiah, 4QJera and 4QJerb), textual criticism proves also to be of enormous help in reconstructing the redactional history of a given bibli- cal book. Thus, such a meticulous and systematic treatment of the literary-critical issues, as Wright has provided readers, would benefit by including a discussion of the text-critical differences between the LXX and the MT. There is another way in which text-critical issues may come into play in discussing the source criticism and redaction criticism of Ezra- Nehemiah. Wright sees the compositional process of the Nehemiah memoir as extending well into the Hellenistic epoch. This raises the question of how the compositional history of Ezra-Nehemiah may relate to the translation of this work (or, at least, parts thereof) into two different works in the Septuagint (Esdras A [a.k.a. 1 Esdras] and Esdras B [a.k.a. LXX Ezra-Nehemiah). Given some of the proposed dates, for example, the second century B.C.E. dating of Nehemiah 12:1-26 (p. 314), the reader is left to wonder how such proposals mesh with the evidence for the range of dates traditionally assigned to the LXX trans- lations of Ezra-Nehemiah? Since Wright dates much of the overall composition of Nehemiah to the Hellenistic period, it would be benefi- cial to see a more thorough discussion of how the proposed dates for the composition of the several layers in the text represented by MT Nehemiah relate to the translations of LXX Ezra-Nehemiah (Esdras B) and 1 Esdras (Esdras A). In the work of past biblical scholars, the composition of LXX Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras have been much debated. Some commen- tators, such as Batten,6 date the translation of Ezra-Nehemiah to the Hellenistic period. Batten also contends that the Vorlage of 1 Esdras actually represents the earlier of the two texts.7 In his commentary, Myers also argues at length for the importance of the witness of 1 Es- dras (which he dates to some time in the second century B.C.E.), but with more caution than did Batten before him.8 Recently, this general view has been revisited at length by Böhler not only with respect to the dates of the two LXX translations, but also with respect to the rele- vance of 1 Esdras for understanding the compositional history of Ezra- Nehemiah.9 There are, of course, other opinions. Blenkinsopp takes a different approach.10 He contends that the two LXX versions are independent from one another and dates 1 Esdras to the late 2nd-1st centuries B.C.E.11 In contrast to Böhler, Talshir maintains that 1 Esdras is a 6 L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC, 12; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913). 7 See Batten, Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 6-14. 8 J. M. Myers, I & II Esdras (AB, 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 5-16. 9 D. Böhler, Heilige Stadt. 10 J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988). 11 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 70. 10 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES compilation based on the Hebrew text underlying the MT of Chroni- cles-Ezra-Nehemiah. Nevertheless, she thinks that the text was translated in the late-third or early second century B.C.E.12 Clearly Wright does not have to resolve all of these issues. But it would be helpful if he discussed them and situated his own proposal in the context of the longstanding debate about the dates and purposes of the two LXX translations. In one short excursus in his book (pp. 322- 24), Wright does discuss the work of Böhler on 1 Esdras. Wright con- tends (in contradistinction to Böhler) that the scattered references found in 1 Esdras (but not in Ezra) to the rebuilding of Jerusalem are all deliberate additions made by the author of 1 Esdras to compensate for the fact that he has not included most of the Nehemiah material within his own work. This is a creative proposal, but it is largely asserted and not argued. It needs to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis with reference to each of the texts in question. Moreover, does Wright think that 1 Esdras was authored as a Greek composition or does he think that there was a Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage that was subsequently trans- lated into Greek? Again, the answer to this question may bear on the larger issue of dating the final stages in the composition of the Nehe- miah memoir well into the Hellenistic period. Since the compositional process of the last stages in the Hebrew (MT) text may be intimately connected to the dates one might attribute to the formation of the 1 Esdras translation of the LXX, it would be useful for Wright to provide a detailed discussion outlining his position on these important issues. Rebuilding Identity is an admirable and noteworthy contribution to the field of source and redaction-critical studies, making the reader more acutely aware of the complexity of the development of the text of Nehemiah. Wright’’s work is especially helpful in drawing attention to seams within the larger work. By pointing out areas where there are discrepancies in flow and content, he helps illuminate the composi- tional, albeit complex, history of Nehemiah. His seven-strata model of the Nehemiah memoir offers one approach to explaining these ten- sions. Wright’’s argument that ““rebuilding identity”” took place ““through active reading,”” is clearly outlined in his book (p. 339). Consequently, his study allows the modern scholar to be an active reader of Wright’’s own work. Even if the reader disagrees with Wright’’s highly- complicated redactional reconstruction, there is much that can be learned from his individual exegetical observations. This commendable study calls attention to the ongoing debate about the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah which, as Wright persuasively argues, was more of a complex process than was previously recognized. 12 Z. Talshir, I Esdras, p. 261.