The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (review)

Hebrew Studies 47 (2006) 454 Reviews In terms of content, several things come to mind. I do not see how the discussion of Bethlehem (p. 2) helps a new student learn Biblical Hebrew. On page 21, since Mara is explained, would it not be good to explain what Naomi means? Why are two choices given for parsing (for example, for the first verb aD;b in 2:4 on p. 29) but only one is used in the translation? It would help the beginner to know why the choice is made. On 2:10 (p. 35) it would be good to tell the reader why BDB uses hhv and HALOT uses hwj, for the lexeme meaning “to bow down.” The same can be said for the translational choice of legs for the lgr on page 53 in 3:4 and not feet, or the possibility of genitals. There are several mistakes that need to be corrected. On page 5, the English letter K is used in the third to the last line when a k is intended. Also on page 5, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax is used and is cited as Wms. Unfortunately, the abbreviation and book are not listed in the bibliography. On page 27, the second to the last entry cannot be both imperfect and imperative. In the second line on page 70, the English spelling/typesetting of Naomi is corrupt. While I think the book can be strengthened, I also believe that the author is on to something for the beginner. Even with the concerns and critiques listed, I believe that it is something of value to the beginner, and I will recommend it to my students. Tom Parker Fuller Theological Seminary Southwest Phoenix, AZ 85006 tparker@fuller.edu THE LEVITICAL AUTHORSHIP OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH. By Kyungjin Min. JSOTSup 409. Pp. xii + 179. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Cloth, $120.00. Min’s work originated as a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Durham, England, in 2002. Presently, the author is a lecturer in theology at Busan Presbyterian University, Gimhae, South Korea. The study revisits the important question of the authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly in the light of the suggested separation of the volume from the work of the Chronicler (or better, the author/editor of 1 and 2 Chronicles) and provides a fresh suggestion concerning its possible origin and author. Min argues that Ezra-Nehemiah most likely originated in a Levitical group that received Persian backing during the late-fifth century B.C.E. His line of reasoning is as follows: In part 1 (pp. 6–48), comprising two chapters, the Hebrew Studies 47 (2006) 455 Reviews author reviews the current status quo of research concerning the authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah. Revisiting the arguments for and against the relationship between the Chronicler and Ezra-Nehemiah and concerning the unity of the book he concludes “that E-N should be treated not only as a work independent of Chronicles, but also as an internally unified composition rather than two separate works” (p. 48). Min accepts the traditional date of EzraNehemiah , that is, in the later half of the fifth century B.C.E. (pp. 34–35) and interacts convincingly with differing viewpoints (as, for example, Schaper’s, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda. Studien zur Kultund Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit, see also my review in HS 43 [2002]: 292–296). However, instead of suggesting an author connected to the priestly class, he argues for an author belonging to a Levitical group. This hypothesis is further developed in part 2 which is entitled “Literary Context” and contains two chapters. The first chapter reviews the description of Levites in postexilic texts of the Hebrew Bible. Min includes here Ezekiel, P and 1 and 2 Chronicles (pp. 50–71), while Ezra-Nehemiah is treated in the following chapter (pp. 72–85). I was not convinced by the selection of the biblical sections that the author thought relevant for his reconstruction . Why were other postexilic prophetic books (such as Malachi and Haggai) not included? Why is there so much emphasis upon the P material , which is dated rather casually to the exile with a secondary expansion added sometime...