Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.

Blackwell
Oxford,
Religion
RECO
©
1749-8171
Journal
November
10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
122
1
0
Original
199???
82???
2008A.The
Compilation
UK
Article
Compass
Publishing
2008
Ezra-Nehemiah
Gerald Author
Klingbeil ©Ltd
2008
in Current Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Research

Between the Traditional and the Innovative:

Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research
Gerald A. Klingbeil*
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies

Abstract
This article attempts to bring together the main threads of Ezra-Nehemiah research
undertaken during the past 15 years, locating it in the larger framework of biblical
studies and identifying possible fruitful avenues of future research. Areas covered
in this article include the text and interpretation of Ezra-Nehemiah, current issues
in the discussion of the history and material culture of the Persian period, the impetus
of sociology and anthropology for the study of Ezra-Nehemiah and studies dealing
with the theology/ideology and religion portrayed in Ezra-Nehemiah.

Introduction or Looking at the Larger Picture

It has been a decade since a scholarly review of studies dealing with the
biblical book of Ezra-Nehemiah has been published (Becking 1998; earlier
Eskenazi 1993 and Klein 1976). In view of the tremendous production of
research in this crucial area of Hebrew Bible research, it is important to
critically interact with current scholarship in order to provide a clearer
understanding of where contemporary Ezra-Nehemiah scholarship is
heading, without overlooking the larger picture involving issues of text,
history, material culture, sociology, religion, and theology.
The historical location (or Sitz im Leben) for the study of the book of
Ezra-Nehemiah lies within the Persian period, which Albright (1934,
p. 20) long ago called ‘one of the most obscure in the history of the
Hebrew people.’ This assessment has been echoed over the past decades
by numerous scholars (Rainey 1969, p. 51; Kaiser 1972, p. 191; Stern
1982, p. xv; Donner 1986, p. 416; or Ahlström 1993, p. 822), due to the
difficulties of clearly assigning characteristics of a particular material culture
to this period and the lack of primary historical data (e.g., inscriptions or
literary texts from that period and found in Syria-Palestine). However,
over the past decade, significant advances have been made in defining more
clearly the Persian period material culture, as well as in the archaeology
of the Hinterland (or rural areas) that allow a more secure interpretation
of this particular historical period (cf. Faust 2003). This in turns provides
more relevant data for the study of the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. Important
© 2009 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 183

studies dealing with the material culture of Palestine during the Persian
period include the 26 chapters included in the volume edited by Lipschits
and Oeming (2006), which integrate historical, archaeological, epigraphical,
and biblical perspectives and need to be considered within the larger
publishing effort of Lipschits who edited (or co-edited) two more volumes
dealing with the Neo-Babylonian period in Judah (Lipschits & Blenkinsopp
2003) and the realities of Judah and Judeans in the fourth century bce
(Lipschits et al. 2007), thus providing a helpful anthology of research
dealing with the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries bce, respectively, which
provides a treasure-trove of data and studies that help to locate the book
of Ezra-Nehemiah (and the Persian period per se) in its historical,
archaeological, and ideological/theological context. Mention should also
be made in this context of the important work of Grabbe (2004) who
provides a very unique tool inasmuch as he focuses exclusively on the
history of the Persian period and discusses (not always in details) all data
relevant for the discussion of this particular historical period in the specific
geographical context of Yehud. Grabbe favors the inverted order, that is,
Nehemiah’s mission some time in the fifth century bce, followed by a
later mission of Ezra in the fourth century bce, which fits neatly his
reconstruction of the larger issue of the development of the biblical text.
Since the translation into English of one of the key works dealing with
the history of the Persian Empire in 2002, a wider audience has been able
to appreciate the careful historical analysis of Briant, which – while not
exclusively dealing with Persian period Yehud or the time of Ezra-
Nehemiah – has provided a detailed and highly analytical history of the
Persian Empire as a whole and reminded the reader of Ezra-Nehemiah
that biblical history is closely interconnected with the larger historical
developments, even though this is not always clearly marked by the
biblical authors. This interconnection between biblical texts and the larger
history has already been noted earlier in the helpful dissertation by
Hoglund (1992) or shorter studies by Blenkinsopp (1987), Margalith (1991),
Mittmann (2000), and Fried (2002), to name a few, and represents an
important agenda for future research into the historical and cultural make-up
of Persian period Yehud within the larger context of the Persian Empire.
In the following I will take a panoramic look at important develop-
ments concerning the text, commentaries, history, sociology, religion, and
ideology of the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. In doing so trends in the study
of Ezra-Nehemiah should become visible, which may highlight the con-
cerns and questions of current scholarship and represents a veritable snap-
shot of academia working on Ezra-Nehemiah.

Text and Commentaries: Treading New Ground

Before attempting to deal with history, ideology, theology or any other
pertinent area of research, the underlying textual database needs to be
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
184 Gerald A. Klingbeil

checked and kept up-to-date, especially when our primary source of

information is textual. The publication of the Ezra-Nehemiah fascicle by
David Marcus (2006a) as part of the Biblica Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), a
new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible that – once finished – is to
replace the venerable Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) of the German
Bible Society, marks an important development in textual studies of
Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly in view of the fact that other projects of
critical editions of the Hebrew Bible (such as the Hebrew University
Bible or the Oxford Hebrew Bible) have not yet published their take on
Ezra-Nehemiah.1 This is not the place to rehash the philosophical and
practical changes of the BHQ as has been done in detail (Sanders 2005;
Klingbeil 2007a) and the editor of the fascicle has provided a very helpful
discussion of the differences between BHS and BHQ of Ezra-Nehemiah
(Marcus 2006b). Suffice to say that BHQ incorporates new textual
resources (e.g., new critical editions of the LXX and Peshitta, recently
published pertinent Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, better facsimile photos of
Codex Leningradensis, etc.), but the most important innovation seems to
be its more detailed textual notes, seeking to explain to the user of the
text the category of a particular variant as well as including a text-critical
commentary where the editor explains the textual decisions made. In the
specific case of Ezra-Nehemiah, the editor suggests that BHQ is much
more cautious in suggesting textual emendations as compared to the
previous edition of BHS (Marcus 2006b, p. 176).
Once the interpreter has established a solid textual base, it is time to
look at the interpretation of the text. The fairly well-defined genre of
biblical commentaries provides a good window into interpretive trends a
commentary generally looks at on the whole, instead of just focusing on
a particular problem or issue. Even though I will predominantly focus on
scholarly works published over the past 15 years, mention should be made
to the highly influential commentaries published by Williamson (1985)
and Blenkinsopp (1988). Particularly, Williamson’s work, appearing in the
Word Biblical Commentary series, has had a very significant influence as
can easily be seen in the reflection and interaction this volume has caused
in subsequent commentaries. Conveniently, there is now a volume of
collected essays of Williamson on Persian period history and historiography
(2004) containing many of the relevant individual studies published over
the past decades. Beginning as early as the 1980s, a new breed of com-
mentaries of Ezra-Nehemiah has come to the fore, that is, commentaries
that focus less on a particular historical location and reconstruction and
pay more attention to literary and theological issues. This trend toward
the final text (which is also observable in other areas of Hebrew Bible
research) can be seen already in Gunneweg’s important (and detailed)
German commentaries (1985 [Ezra] and 1987 [Nehemiah]), which take
as their point of departure the compositional unity of Ezra-Nehemiah,
thus seeking to interpret the final text of the book (1987, p. 30). In the
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 185

introduction to Throntveit’s (1992, pp. 2–3) commentary (appearing in

the Interpretation series), a similar focus is highlighted and the commentary
proper suggests a number of interesting chiastic structures. Breneman’s
(1993) commentary in the New American Commentary series, on the
other hand, seeks to bridge the cultural and historical gap between the
fifth century bce and the twenty-first century and provides solid textual
discussions from a conservative viewpoint with the pastor and seminary
student in mind.
In 1998, the Ezra-Nehemiah volume of the Westminster Bible Com-
panion series was published by J. van Wijk-Bos, emphasizing a theological
approach to the text, over against the more standard historical-critical
approach (1998, p. viii). The (nearly) exclusive focus on the theological
aspect of the text has given the author more leeway in avoiding textual
or historical issues, resulting in a rather brief commentary (i.e., 162 pages).
A year later, G. Davies (1999) added another significant contribution
(appearing in the Berit Olam series) to the literary study of Ezra-
Nehemiah. Paying close attention to elements of narrative research,
including plot, structure, characterization, and rhetorical strategies, this
unconventional commentary (i.e., no verse-by-verse comments) provides
helpful insights into the larger structure and communicative drive of
Ezra-Nehemiah. In the same year, Klein (1999) authored the section on
Ezra-Nehemiah in the newly updated New Interpreter’s Bible commentary,
another series aiming not necessarily at academic scholarship but at
providing helpful data for pastors, teachers, and lay church members.
Since the exegetical approach is ‘text-centered’ (p. xvii of vol. 3 of the
New Interpreter’s Bible), focusing on the final form of the text, it falls
broadly within the current trend in biblical studies.
Two more recent additions to the Ezra-Nehemiah commentary genre
should not go unmentioned. Allen and Laniak (2003) published their
Ezra-Nehemiah commentary in the New International Biblical Commentary
series, focusing particularly on the literary features of the biblical text
(even though cursory attention is also given to textual and historical issues).
Another approach towards the biblical text has been chosen the new
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible series, where Levering (2007)
published the volume on Ezra-Nehemiah. The series’ focus is not historical,
literary, or linguistic, but rather theological. Commentators are not
necessarily chosen for the acumen in biblical scholarship, but rather for
the knowledge of and expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition
(Levering 2007, p. 12). To put it differently, Levering (and the other
volumes in the this series) read the biblical texts as a unified whole which
is part of the ‘revelation of God’s covenantal gift of holiness’ (2007, p. 19).
Besides the final-text oriented approach that may be interpreted as a
reaction of the loss of contact between academia and the real world,
another important trend in biblical studies should be noted, namely, the
‘globalization of hermeneutics’ (Blomberg 1995), which focuses on
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
186 Gerald A. Klingbeil

non-western readings of the biblical text (Räisänen 2000; Ukpong 2000,

2002). In 2006, T. Adeyemo edited the one-volume Africa Bible Com-
mentary, including sections on Ezra-Nehemiah written by Congolese
scholar N. Weanzana (2006, pp. 531–58), which incorporate observations
and applications from the text that are relevant for the church in Africa
(or – to a lesser degree – any other two-third world country). This
approach had already been applied earlier to the study of Ezra-Nehemiah
by South African scholars Turner (1998) and Farisani (2002, 2003).

History and Material Culture and Ezra-Nehemiah

History and the material culture of a particular place and time are two
closely associated items. To be sure, historical (or historiographical)
writings do not automatically provide clear indications about the reality
of a particular material culture, due to their possible ideological under-
pinnings, but texts do reflect realities that may only fit into a particular
timeframe and thus help the reader to better understand and grasp a
specific period. A good example of the close link between material
culture, texts, and biblical interpretation is the case of the mule. As has
been demonstrated in two detailed studies (Klingbeil 2003a,b), the use of
mules as royal means of transportation (as visible so often in the period of
the united monarchy of David and Solomon) is congruent with the
material culture and realities of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron
Age, but not the later Persian or Hellenistic periods. Some helpful overview
chapters dealing with the material culture of Persian period Palestine (and
more specifically Yehud) include Hoglund (2002), Carter (1994, 2003)
and the many chapters in Lipschits and Oeming (2006) that build upon
the ground-breaking work of Stern (1982). Recently, Finkelstein
(2008a,b) has also entered the debate with helpful summaries of the
archaeological data of Persian period Yehud. Since the Yehud community
described in Ezra-Nehemiah was a relatively small community, recent
advances in socio-linguistics and speech therapy have made for some
interesting perspectives as to its size and extension (Polak 2006).
The current thinking about Persian period Yehud entails an (ethnically)
multi-faceted population (cf. Klingbeil 2007b, pp. 66–70), a much better
understanding of its archaeology, as well as the recognition of the
interaction between the smallish province of Yehud with other Persian
provinces in Palestine, including Moab, Ammon, Gilead, Samaria, Ashdod,
Idumea, etc., that were all part of the fifth Persian satrapy called Ebir-
NAri.2 This interest is not only due to more careful and differentiated
analysis of the material culture (i.e., the archaeology of Persian period
Palestine), but also to the fact that most modern scholars view this period
as the hotbed of creative literary activity during which most books of the
Hebrew Bible were edited or composed and thus merits a closer look (e.g.,
Davies 1992, 1998; Bolin 1996). Integrating the book of Ezra-Nehemiah
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 187

into the larger context of Persian history and ideology, scholars have long
discussed the authenticity (or lack thereof ) of the Aramaic documents that
were integrated in the biblical books. A significant number of scholars
would question their authenticity (Schwiderski 2000; Grätz 2004a;
Grabbe 2006), while some understand them as genuine (Williamson 1985,
p. 98; Janzen 2000, p. 622). Focusing upon the integration of Yehud’s
history into the larger history of Medo-Persia, some scholars have argued
for a much stronger hand of the Persian overlords in the development and
authorization of the Torah (Frei 1984, 2001, but see Knoppers 2001
response), which, of course, presupposes that the Pentateuch was only
edited during the fifth century ce, a notion not shared by all scholars (cf.
the many references and discussion of the basic presuppositions and data
in Klingbeil 2003c).
Another important question that has historical repercussions involves
the issue of order. Which occurred first, Ezra and then Nehemiah, or vice
versa? Another question involves the date of the book. Farisani (2004,
p. 225) has provided a helpful update of scholarly opinions about these
two issues and has noted that the pendulum seems to swing back to the
canonical order of Ezra followed by Nehemiah. While he accepts the
authenticity of the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs, he suggests that a later
editor compiled and linked these memoirs in the Hellenistic period,
around 300 bce (2004, pp. 226–7). Based upon the function of elders in
Ezra 5–6, Grätz (2006) has recently made a similar claim and would date
Ezra some time during the Hellenistic period. Focusing on Ezra 7:12–26,
he has also suggested that the supposed decree of Artaxerxes II should
rather be read in the light of Hellenistic royal ideology (Grätz 2004a,b).
A completely different approach has been taken by Min (2004) who
follows current thinking about the independence of the Chronicler from
Ezra-Nehemiah (Williamson 1985, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv; Eskenazi 1988,
pp. 14–36; Japhet 1991, 1993, pp. 4–5; Knoppers 2004, pp. 72–89) and
argues for a late fifth century ce date (2004, pp. 34–5). Min suggests that
the author belonged to Levitical circles (as opposed to earlier suggestions
linking Ezra to priestly circles) which, to a certain degree, is linked to his
reliance on traditional dates for the different sources of the Pentateuch
(Klingbeil 2003c). It is important to note that the issue of authorship and
date is not resolved (as with most biblical books), even though it seems
as if the trend to look at the final (canonical) text of Ezra-Nehemiah and
the decreased interest in historical readings of the biblical text as a whole
– most likely due to the increased focus on literary readings and postmo-
dernity’s deliberate disregard for history or historical questions as a trust-
worthy guide to understanding and ‘truth’ – has led to less discussion and
controversy in this area. While the historicity, order, and date of the book
of Ezra-Nehemiah and its two main protagonists is a legitimate issue and
question of biblical scholarship, it seems as if it is not one of the key
questions that drives current research. However, in order to avoid
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
188 Gerald A. Klingbeil

oversimplification, it should be emphasized that while this trend rings true

for North American scholarship, European scholarship is still fascinated by
hypothetical and complex editorial processes as can be seen in Pakkala’s
work (2004) on the development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8 where he posits
not less than eight different literary strata that are present in the Ezra
material (2004, p. 301). Another important contribution to the discussion
of the editorial development of Ezra-Nehemiah, and focusing particularly
on the so-called Nehemiah memoir, has been made by Wright (2004) and
challenges the reader to reflect about the broader hermeneutical and
compositional questions regarding canon formation and the composition
of the biblical text per se. Wright argues that Nehemiah gradually developed
from a brief wall building report that over time was expanded and became
part of a drive to create corporal identity. Wright’s approach can be linked
to earlier attempts in Pentateuchal criticism to explain the origin of a
textual body in terms of supplementary hypothesis (cf. Eskenazi 2006).

Sociology and Ezra-Nehemiah Research

Over the past decades, biblical studies have increasingly interacted with
sociological research and methodologies (Wilson 1984; Carter 1999;
Martin 1999; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 2000). Overcoming the impasse of a
purely historical research agenda, sociology has added some fascinating
research questions for biblical scholars, involving issues of marriage, social
structure, the individual versus the collective, the importance of shame and
honor in ancient society, orality and literacy, power and hierarchy, etc.
The issue of cross-cultural marriage and divorce is not just a concern of
the twenty-first century and a significant number of studies have dealt
with it, considering the prominence of the issue in Ezra 9–10 and Neh
13:23–31 (Eskenazi and Judd 1994; Smith-Christopher 1994; Gitay 1997;
Pichon 1997; Hayes 1999; Zlotnick-Sivan 2000; Janzen 2002; Klingbeil
2007b; Lange 2008). Many of these studies have used sociological criteria
to adequately interpret some of the (for a western Bible reader) surprising
and even shocking statements. Klingbeil (2007b), for example, has made
a case for a socio-linguistic reading of the texts, suggesting that Nehemiah’s
strong reaction to the fact that the children of these ‘mixed’ marriages
could not speak Hebrew is due to the fact that language is intimately
associated with religious formation and that the lack of understanding
Hebrew (i.e., the sacred language of Israel and Judaism) indicated a much
deeper problem in their religious affiliation, which would explain Nehe-
miah’s extremely strong response.
Other concerns are equally visible in the cross-cultural marriage issue
of Ezra-Nehemiah, as has been argued by Janzen (2002) who focused
upon purity concerns and social boundaries. Purity and holiness concerns
are powerful elements of ancient societies and have been recognized as
such in many recent studies (Washington 2003; Maccoby 1996). The
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 189

importance of purity concerns in the postexilic Jewish community needs

to be seen against the backdrop of the historical realities of the exile and
Diaspora that required a re-constituting of a ‘lost’ community (Olyan
2004 and also Schaper 2003). As has been argued by Albertz (2006), these
purity concerns should not only be interpreted in terms of religious
realities, but also in terms of their political significance of establishing
‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.
Shame and honor are other important elements of ancient societies and
current research has shown the importance of these sociological categories
for biblical research (Bechtel 1994; McVann 1994; Laniak 1998), and,
more specifically, for research on the book of Ezra-Nehemiah (van Grol
1997). Neither shame nor honor are highly significant values in most
western cultures, but play an important role in Asian and African com-
munities. For example, Nehemiah’s strong reaction to the disconcerting
news about the renewed destruction of Jerusalem in Neh 1 makes perfect
sense when one considers the lack of wall and the exposed nature of the
city to its enemies as a matter of shame and honor, instead of a merely
military or strategic issue. Jerusalem is shamed and so are its inhabitants.
People living in the ancient Near East would have immediately asked the
question: What about the God of Jerusalem? Is he not powerless and
shamed or can he – somehow – turn around the destiny of his people?
Since language is such an important element of social interaction and
identification, the change from Hebrew (before the exile) to Aramaic
(after the exile) in Yehudite society and among Jews living in the Diaspora
represents an important research agenda, particularly in view of the text
of Ezra which (similar to Daniel) employs both Hebrew and Aramaic.
Schniedewind (2005; cf. also Arnold 1996) has discussed the social
ramification of the language shift that needs to be taken into consideration
by biblical interpreters. The rivalry between an every-day language and a
sacred language that appears evident in the context of Ezra-Nehemiah
involves also issues of bilingualism and the appropriateness of speaking (or
reading) a particular language in a particular context (Smelik 2007) and is
not unique to postexilic Yehud but also known from other periods and
places in the ancient Near East (Beaulieu 2005; van der Hout 2005;
Woods 2005). Since language is so intimately linked to social, ethnic,
cultural, and religious identification (Klingbeil 2007b), the drive to under-
stand the use (and disuse) in specific circumstances (such as public events
or moments of worship, cf. Neh 8:8) in postexilic Judaism (including also
the larger Diaspora) marks an important research agenda for future studies
of Ezra-Nehemiah.

Religion, Theology, and Ideology and Ezra-Nehemiah Research

While there is a notable increase in studies looking at biblical ritual and
making use of ritual theory over the past two decades (Gorman 1995,
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
190 Gerald A. Klingbeil

1990; Gruenwald 2003; Bergen 2007, 2005; Klingbeil 2007c; Watts 2007),
little research has been done looking at the book of Ezra-Nehemiah from
a ritual perspective. This may be due to predominant paradigms as to the
literary and historical development of the texts and religious practice
contained in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the tension between practitioners
of biblical theology and those preferring to describe (and re-construct or
deconstruct) the history of religion of that period and region (Albertz
1995, 1998; Janowski 2002). It has been argued that cult and, more
specifically, ritual may provide a helpful vehicle to recognize and decipher
theology in any society (Klingbeil 2004), since practice is generally
informed by theory, even though this may be subliminal or beyond the
surface structure of a text or practice. If this is indeed true future research
into the theological or ideological constructs of the postexilic Yehud
community should pay closer attention to ritual elements prevalent in
Ezra-Nehemiah. For example, the pilgrimage motif, which is an important
element of ritual involving movement and space, seems to be present in
the different accounts of the returns from exile to Jerusalem, as recently
argued by Knowles (2004, and more developed in 2006), and while it
reflects the exodus imagery so well known in other biblical texts (cf.
Ninow 2001), its repetitiveness and focal point (i.e., towards Jerusalem)
adds an important dimension to this theological motif.
Other topics of interest for a theological reading of Ezra-Nehemiah
include the important covenant renewal ceremony found in Neh 7:72–
10:40, which has been comprehensively studied by Duggan (2001), focusing
on the main exegetical (i.e., text), literary, and theological concerns of the
passage. His method is synchronic (2001, p. 57) and together with other
scholars Duggan argues that the covenant renewal constitutes the ‘narrative
crux of the whole book’ (p. 57). Duggan suggests that the Levites’ prayer
(Neh 9:6–37) is the theological centerpiece of the covenant renewal and
represents the theological center of the Ezra-Nehemiah story (2001, p.
298). Duggan is not alone in this as can be seen in Oeming’s study of
Neh 9 (2006). This in turn unfolds a theology of history, including
penitential confession, extending the historical horizon from creation to
the contemporary community, and emphasizing (in line with other bibli-
cal texts) the centrality and holiness of the land as belonging to YHWH.
The covenant is not situated in the postexilic context but rather is linked
to Sinai and the original pentateuchal setting of the giving of the law, a
notion that is also emphasized in the references to the surrounding
population as the ‘peoples of the land’ who treat the Israelites as slaves and
thus seems to link the exodus motif to the conquest motif. Duggan (2001,
p. 299) summarizes his findings as follows:

In summary, the covenant renewal represents the determinative juncture in

which Israel seizes control of its destiny. Insofar as the people remain loyal to
the Torah, they need no longer be victims of the infidelities of past generations
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 191

or slaves or present foreign overlords. From a narrative perspective, the cove-

nant renewal provides a new beginning in the tradition of the Abrahamic
covenant. However, the shape of the future depends on the people’s remaining
attentive to the Mosaic law that God gave them when he spoke to them from
heaven at Sinai (9: 13–14).
The meaning of sacrifice has received much attention in the study of
ancient religions, including also the religion of the Hebrew Bible (Levine
2002; Eberhart 2002; Dahm 2003; Marx 2003; Sklar 2005, to mention a
few recent contributions). Some more recent studies have focused on the
function of sacrifice in Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly its social function
(McEntire 1993, pp. 81–96, 101–5; Janzen 2004, pp. 185–208). Relying
on general anthropological theories of sacrifice, McEntire suggests that
sacrificial ritual always emerges as a mechanism for developing community
(1993, p. 107) and establishes new boundaries that will keep out some and
include others. Considering the public nature of sacrifice and its focus on
a particular place (i.e., the temple or the altar associated with the temple),
sacrifice represents also an important tool for leadership to assert
authority. Janzen, on the other hand, criticizes McEntire’s heavy reliance
on anthropological theory as his predominant lens through which sacrifice
in Ezra-Nehemiah is interpreted and instead of focusing on the cohesive
power of ritual and sacrifice, argues that sacrifice ‘separates the holy
Israel in its holy Jerusalem from the surrounding unclean peoples’ ( Janzen
2004, p. 206). These purity concerns have already been noted in the
discussion of mixed marriages and, according to Janzen, mark an important
difference in worldview between the priestly writings and Ezra-Nehemiah
where separation is not primarily vertical but horizontal (cf. also Olyan
2004).
Prayer is another important theological element of Ezra-Nehemiah and
significant research has focused on this aspect during the past decade
(Boda 1997; Newman 1998; Andiñach 2000; Venter 2005; Talstra 2007).
Prayers appear at crucial moments in the narrative and are often associated
with confession and covenant renewal. Most of the prayers in Ezra-
Nehemiah are not cyclical (i.e., being part of specific cultic calendar), but
are triggered by specific events or needs. Penitentiary prayers and confes-
sions (both individual and communal) play a significant role and seem to link
back to purity concerns and realization that Israel, as YHWH’s people, needs
to be distinct from the (unclean) nations surrounding Jerusalem. This
theological construct represents a response to a different political reality of
being subject to an international superpower that (by virtue of being an
overlord) controls most important elements of the social, economic, military,
and political life. As has been suggested by Tollefson and Williamson
(1992, p. 44; cf. earlier Tollefson 1986), many elements (including also the
prayers, sacrifices, and covenant renewal ceremonies) of Ezra-Nehemiah
need to be understood in terms of responses to foreign domination,
planned change, and subsequent cultural (and religious) revitalization.
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
192 Gerald A. Klingbeil

Conclusion: Looking Forward

Research on Ezra-Nehemiah is vibrant and produces a kaleidoscope of
contributions that reflect the fragmentation of methods also noticeable in
the larger context of biblical studies. While traditional diachronic concerns
for sources and editorial activities are still pursued (mostly in European
scholarship), a trend toward synchronic readings of the text and an appre-
ciation for the literary artistry seems to characterize the majority of recent
commentaries and monographs. The availability of the new BHQ fascicle
of Ezra-Nehemiah provides a welcome update of the critical text and
makes available the fruit of several decades of textual criticism. Another
important trend in the study of Ezra-Nehemiah, paralleled by develop-
ments in other biblical text genres, is the globalization of interpretation.
Biblical scholars from the two-thirds world (especially Africa) begin to
explore the biblical text from the perspective of the needs and realities of
postcolonial biblical scholarship in these regions. Issues of justice, com-
munity, re-construction, power structures, liberation, and others are high
on the research agenda of these scholars.
The interaction of the material culture and the biblical text is another
thriving sideshow of studies dealing with Ezra-Nehemiah in the larger
context of the history of the Persian period. Continued efforts and
developments in archaeological method, including also a look at the rural
Hinterland and an increased interest in paleozoological and paleobiological
data are providing helpful data for a more systematic look at the Persian
period in Yehud or Syria-Palestine. However, historical concerns are often
linked to ideological or theological issues, thus broadening the research
agenda. Ezra-Nehemiah research has also benefited from anthropological
and sociological perspectives. A good example of the importance of these
angles can be found in the discussion of the mixed (or ‘cross-cultural’)
marriages issue that appears repeatedly in Ezra-Nehemiah. Another
important contribution of the social science research agenda is the recog-
nition of the importance of shame/honor paradigms. The importance of
language acquisition in the context of bilingual societies and its relevance
for developing a shared cultural, political, and religious identity is another
important research focus in the social sciences and may also provide
important impetus for Ezra-Nehemiah studies.
The importance of the study of ritual for understanding the religion in
Ezra-Nehemiah is increasingly more recognized and further research
should be undertaken that goes beyond the traditional topics such as cult
and sacrifice. Ritualization as a tool of creating a community and demarcat-
ing that community has been recognized in social scientific research.
Together with the emphasis on purity, this research agenda promises to
yield helpful data that will further our understanding of the religious,
social, and political realities in Persian period Yehud. Needless to say,
Ezra-Nehemiah research will flourish in the coming decades.
© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 193

Short Biography
Gerald A. Klingbeil is Dean and Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient
Near Eastern Studies at the Theological Seminary, Adventist International
Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Philippines. He holds a BA Theology
from Andrews University, USA, and earned a BA Honors, MA and
D.Litt. degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from the University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa. His doctoral dissertation (published in 1998
by Edwin Mellen Press) is entitled Ordination and Ritual. On the Symbolism
of Time, Space, and Actions in Leviticus 8. Since 1995, he has taught in
different academic institutions in South America (Peru and Argentina) and
Asia (Philippines). This multicultural teaching experience has influenced
his research interests, challenging him to look beyond the traditional and
focus on the innovative and multi-disciplinary. He has written on ritual
and ritual theory, biblical hermeneutics, archaeological method, missiology,
ecclesiology, Aramaic epigraphy, exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, biblical
law, among others. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed academic
articles in journals and has contributed to the New Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary,
New International Dictionay of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, the
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, the Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Pentateuch, the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books and the
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings. His latest
book entitled Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible appeared
in 2007 at Eisenbrauns. He is currently the co-chair of the Ritual in the
Biblical World consultation of the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature.

Notes
* Correspondence address: Gerald A. Klingbeil, Theological Seminary, Adventist International
Institute of Advanced Studies, P.O. Box 038, Silang, Cavite 4118, Philippines. E-mail:
[email protected].
1
Concerning the making of critical editions of the Hebrew Bible and the different underlying
philosophical and ideological presuppositions, compare the insightful comments found in Weis (2002).
2
The biblical text reads here ‘beyond the River’ (Ezra 4:10, 11, 16, 17, 20; 5:3, 6;
6:6, 8, 13; 7:21, 25; 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7). The point of reference is the river Euphrates.

Works Cited
Ahlström, GW, 1993, ‘The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to
Alexander’s Conquest’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 146,
Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK.
Albertz, R, 1995, ‘Religionsgeschichte Israels statt Theologie des Alten Testaments. Plädoyer
für eine forschungsgeschichtliche Umorientierung,’ Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, vol. 10,
pp. 3–24.
–––, 1998, ‘Biblische oder Nicht-Biblische Religionsgeschichte Israels?’ in M Dietrich, I
Kottsieper and H Schaudig (eds.), ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf.’ Studien zum Alten
Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift fur Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70.

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
194 Gerald A. Klingbeil

Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, Alter Orient und Altes Testament,
vol. 250, pp. 27–41, Ugarit Verlag, Münster, Germany.
–––, 2006, ‘Purity Strategies and Political Interests in the Policy of Nehemiah’, in S Gitin, JE
Wright, and JP Dessel (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient
Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, pp. 199–206, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Albright, WF, 1934, ‘Light on the Jewish State in Persian Times’, Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research, no. 53, pp. 20–22.
Allen, LC, & Laniak, TS, 2003, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, New International Biblical Commentary,
vol. 9, pp. 1–166, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA.
Andiñach, PR, 2000, ‘Nehemías 9,5b-37: oración y denuncia de la opresión’, in G Hansen
(ed.), Los caminos inexhauribles de la Palabra (las relecturas creativas en la Biblia y de la Biblia):
homenaje de colegas y discípulos a J. Severino Croatto en sus 70 años de vida, 40 de magisterio, y 25
en el ISEDET, pp. 241–53, Grupo Editorial Lumen, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Arnold, BT, 1996, ‘The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism
in Ezra and Daniel’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1–16.
Beaulieu, P-A, 2005, ‘Official and Vernacular Languages: The Shifting Sands of Imperial and
Cultural Identities in First Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia’, in SL Sanders (ed.), Margins of
Writing, Origins of Cultures, Oriental Institute Seminars, vol. 2, pp. 187–216, The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Bechtel, LM, 1994, ‘The Perception of Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in
Biblical Israel’, in LM Hopfe (ed.), Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil
Richardson, pp. 79–92, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Becking, B, 1998, ‘Ezra on the Move . . . Trends and Perspectives on the Character and His
Book’, in FG Martínez and E Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and
Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th
Birthday, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bergen, WJ, 2005, ‘Reading Ritual’, Leviticus in Postmodern Culture, Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 417, T&T Clark, London, UK/New York, NY.
–––, 2007, ‘Studying Ancient Israelite Ritual: Methodological Considerations’, Religion
Compass Religion Compass, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 579–86; doi:10.1111/j.1749-8171.2007.00033.x;
available at http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/religion/article_view?article_id=reco_
articles_bpl033.
Blenkinsopp, J, 1987, ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, Journal
of Biblical Literature, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 409–21.
–––, 1988, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, Westminster, CO/Philadel-
phia, PA.
Blomberg, CL, 1995, ‘The Globalization of Hermeneutics’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society, vol. 38, pp. 581–93.
Boda, MJ, 1997, ‘Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9’,
Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 179–82.
Bolin, TM, 1996, ‘When the End is the Beginning: The Persian Period and the Origins of the
Biblical Traditions’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament vol. 10, no. 1996, pp. 3–15.
Breneman, M, 1993, Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther, New American Commentary, vol. 10, Broadman &
Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN.
Carter, CE, 1994, ‘The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distri-
bution and Demography’, in TC Eskenazi and KH Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. 2.
Temple Community in the Persian Period, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series, vol. 175, pp. 106–45, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK.
–––, 1999, ‘Opening Windows onto Biblical Worlds. Applying the Social Sciences to Hebrew
Scripture’, in DW Baker and BT Arnold (eds.), The Face of Old Testament Studies. A Survey
of Contemporary Approaches, pp. 421–51, Apollos/Baker Books, Leicester, UK/Grand Rapids,
MI.
–––, 2003, ‘Syria-Palestine in the Persian Period’, in S Richard (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology:
A Reader, pp. 398– 412, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Dahm, U, 2003, Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel. Ein kultur- und religionswissen-
schaftlicher Beitrag, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 327, de
Gruyter, Berlin.

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 195

Davies, PR, 1992, ‘In Search of “Ancient Israel” ’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series, vol. 148, JSOT Press, Sheffield, UK.
–––, 1998, ‘Scribes and Schools’, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, Library of Ancient
Israel, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Davies, GF, 1999, Ezra and Nehemiah, Berit Olam. Studies in Narrative & Poetry, Liturgical
Press, Collegeville, MN.
Donner, H, 1986, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. Teil 2:
Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen, Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. ATD Ergän-
zungsreihe, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.
Duggan, MW, 2001, ‘The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b-10:40)’, An
Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study, SBL Dissertation Series, vol. 164, Society of Biblical
Literature, Atlanta, GA.
Eberhart, C, 2002, ‘Beobachtungen zum Verbrennungsritus bei Schlachtopfer und Gemeinschafts-
Schlachtopfer’, Biblica, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 88–96.
Eskenazi, TC, 1988, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, Society of Biblical
Literature Monograph Series, vol. 36, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA.
–––, 1993, ‘Current Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah and the Persian Period’, Currents in
Research: Biblical Studies, vol. 1, pp. 59–86.
–––, 2006, ‘Review of JL Wright, 2004, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its
Earliest Readers’, Review of Biblical Literature; available at http://www.bookreviews.org.
Eskenazi, TC, & Judd, EP, 1994, ‘Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10’, in TC Eskenazi and
KH Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period, Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 175, pp. 266–85, Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield, UK.
Farisani, E, 2002, ‘The Ideologically Biased Use of Ezra-Nehemiah in a Quest for an African
Theology of Reconstruction’, Old Testament Essays, vol. 15, pp. 628–46.
–––, 2003, ‘The Use of Ezra-Nehemiah in a Quest for an African Theology of Reconstruc-
tion’, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, vol. 116, pp. 27–50.
–––, 2004, The Composition and Date of Ezra-Nehemiah’, Old Testament Essays, vol. 17,
pp. 208–30.
Faust, A, 2003, ‘Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective’, Palestine Exploration
Quarterly, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 37–53.
Finkelstein, I, 2008a, ‘Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, vol. 140, pp. 1–10.
–––, 2008b, ‘Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah’,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, vol. 32, pp. 501–20.
Frei, P, 1984, ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’, in P Frei and K
Koch (eds.), Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, vol. 55,
pp. 7– 43, Universitätsverlag, Fribourg, Switzerland.
–––, 2001, ‘Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary’, in JW Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah.
The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, SBL Symposium Series, vol. 17, pp. 5–
40, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA.
Fried, LS, 2002, ‘The Political Struggle of Fifth Century Judah’, Transeuphratène, vol. 24, pp.
61–73.
Gitay, Y, 1997, ‘A Designed Anti-Rhetorical Speech: Ezra and the Question of Mixed Mar-
riage’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 57–68.
Gorman, FH, Jr, 1990, ‘The Ideology of Ritual. Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology,’
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 91, JSOT Press, Sheffield.
–––, 1995, ‘Ritual Studies and Biblical Studies: Assessment of the Past, Prospects for the
Future’, Semeia, no. 67, pp. 13–36.
Grabbe, LL, 2004, ‘The History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Volume
I: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah,’ The Library of Second Temple Studies,
vol. 47, T&T Clark, New York, NY.
–––, 2006, ‘The “Persian Documents” in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’ in O
Lipschits and M Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, pp. 531–70,
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Grätz, S, 2004a, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
196 Gerald A. Klingbeil

historischem Umfeld von Esra 7, 12–26,’ Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft, vol. 337, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany/New York, NY.
–––, 2004b, ‘Esra 7 im Kontext hellenistischer Politik. Der königliche Euergetismus in
hellenistischer Zeit als ideeler Hintergrund von Esr 7, 12–26’, in S Alkier and M Witte
(eds.), Die Griechen und das antike Israel. Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions- und Kulturgeschichte
des Heiligen Landes, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, vol. 201, Academic Press/Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Fribourg/Göttingen, pp. 131–83.
Grätz, S, 2006, ‘Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–
6’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 405–22.
Gruenwald, I, 2003, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel, Brill Reference Library of Judaism,
vol. 10, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gunneweg, AHJ, 1985, Esra, Kommentar zum Alten Testament vol. 19/1, Evangelische Verlag-
sanstalt, Berlin, Germany.
–––, 1987, Nehemia, Kommentar zum Alten Testament vol. 19/2, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
Berlin, Germany.
Hayes, C, 1999, ‘Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources’, Harvard Theological
Review, vol. 92, pp. 3–36.
Hoglund, KG, 1992, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra
and Nehemiah, SBL Dissertation Series, vol. 125, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA.
Hoglund, KG, 2002, ‘The Material Culture of the Persian Period and the Sociology of the
Second Temple Period’, in PR Davies and JM Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III.
Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supple-
ment Series vol. 340, pp. 14–18, Sheffield Academic Press, London, UK/New York, NY.
Janowski, B, 2002, ‘Theologie des Alten Testaments. Plädoyer für eine Integrative Perspektive’,
in A Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 90, pp.
241–76, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Janzen, D, 2000, ‘The “Mission” of Ezra and the Persian Period Temple Community’, Journal
of Biblical Literature, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 619–43.
–––, 2002, ‘Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries’, The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in
Ezra 9-10, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 350, Sheffield
Academic Press, London, UK/New York, NY.
–––, 2004, ‘The Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible’, A Study of Four Writings,
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 344, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,
Germany.
Japhet, S, 1991, ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’, in JA Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume, Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 43, pp. 298–313,
Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
–––, 1993, I & II Chronicles. A Commentary, Old Testament Library, Westminster John Knox Press,
Louisville, KY.
Kaiser, O, 1972, ‘Zwischen den Fronten. Palästina in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem
Perserreich und Ägypten in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jahrhunderts’, in J Schreiner (ed.), Wort,
Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler, pp. 197–
206, Echter Verlag/Katholisches Bibelwerk, Würzburg, Germany.
Klein, RW, 1976, ‘Ezra and Nehemiah in Recent Studies’, in FM Cross, Jr, WE Lemke and
PD Miller, Jr (eds.) Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology
in Memory of G. E. Wright, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
–––, 1999, ‘The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah’, in LE Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12
vols., vol. 3, pp. 661–851. Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.
Klingbeil, GA, 2003a, ‘Methods and Daily Life: Understanding the Use of Animals in Daily
Life in a Multi-Disciplinary Framework’, in R Averbeck, DB Weisberg and MW Chavalas
(eds.), Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East, pp. 401–33, CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.
–––, 2003b [2004], ‘ “Man’s Other Best Friend”: The Interaction of Equids and Man in Daily
Life in Iron Age II Palestine as Seen in Texts, Artifacts, and Images’, Ugarit-Forschungen, vol.
35, pp. 259–90.
–––, 2003c, ‘Historical Criticism’, in TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old
Testament: Pentateuch, pp. 401–20. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
–––, 2004, ‘Altars, Ritual and Theology – Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 197

and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures’, Vetus Testamentum, vol. 54, no. 4, pp.
495–515.
–––, 2007a, ‘Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megil-
loth’, Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 216–19.
–––, 2007b, ‘ “Not so Happily Ever After . . .”: Cross-Cultural Marriages in the Time of Ezra-
Nehemiah,’ Maarav, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 39–75.
–––, 2007c, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, Bulletin for Biblical Research
Supplements, vol. 1, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Knoppers, GN, 2001, ‘An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?’ in JW
Watts (ed.), Persia and Torah. The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, SBL
Symposium Series, vol. 17, pp. 115–34, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA.
–––, 2004, 1 Chronicles 1–9, The Anchor Bible, vol. 12, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Knowles, MD, 2004, ‘Pilgrimage Imagery in the Returns in Ezra’, Journal of Biblical Literature,
vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 57–74.
–––, 2006, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud & the Diaspora in the
Persian Period, SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, vol. 16, Society of Biblical Literature,
Atlanta, GA.
Lange, A, 2008, ‘Your Daughter Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not
Take for your Sons (Ezra, 9,12),’ Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea
Scrolls, Biblische Notizen, vol. 137, pp. 17–39.
Laniak, TS, 1998, Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther, SBL Dissertation Series, vol. 165,
Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA.
Levering, M, 2007, Ezra & Nehemiah, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, Brazos, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Levine, BA, 2002, ‘Ritual as Symbol: Modes of Sacrifice in Israelite Religion’, in BM Gittlen
(ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 125–35, Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, IN.
Lipschits, O, & Blenkinsopp, J, (eds.) 2003, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period,
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Lipschits, O, & Oeming, M, (eds.) 2006, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, IN.
Lipschits, O, Knoppers, GN, & Albertz, R, (eds.) 2007, Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth
Century B.C.E., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Maccoby, H, 1996, ‘Holiness and Purity: The Holy People in Leviticus and Ezra-Nehemiah’,
in JFA Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus. A Conversation with Mary Douglas, Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 228, pp. 153–70. Sheffield Academic Press, Shef-
field, UK
Marcus, D, 2006a, Ezra and Nehemiah, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, fascicle 20, Deutsche Bibelgesells-
chaft, Stuttgart, Germany.
–––, 2006b, ‘How BHQ differs from BHS in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in YAP Goldman,
A van der Kooij and RD Weis (eds.), Sofer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker offered
by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 110, pp. 169–76. Brill,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
Margalith, O, 1991, ‘The Political Background of Zerrubbabel’s Mission and the Samaritan
Schism’, Vetus Testamentum, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 312–23.
Martin, DB, 1999, ‘Social-Scientific Criticism’, in SL McKenzie and SR Haynes (eds.), To Each
Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, rev. ed., pp. 125–
41. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY.
Marx, A, 2003, ‘The Theology of the Sacrifice According to Leviticus 1-7’, in R Rendtorff
and RA Kugler (eds.), The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Reception, Vetus Testamentum
Supplements, vol. 93, pp. 103–20, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
McEntire, MH, 1993, The Function of Sacrifice in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, Edwin Mellen
Press, Lewiston, NY.
McVann, M, 1994, ‘Reading Mark Ritually: Honor-Shame and the Ritual of Baptism’, Semeia,
no. 67, pp. 179–98.
Min, K-J, 2004, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series, vol. 409, T&T Clark International, London, UK/New York, NY.

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
198 Gerald A. Klingbeil

Mittmann, S, 2000, ‘Tobia, Sanballat und die persische Provinz Juda’, Journal of Northwest Semitic
Languages, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1–50.
Newman, JH, 1998, ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple
Period’, in CA Evans and JA Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and
Christian Tradition, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, vol. 154, pp.
112–23, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK.
Ninow, F, 2001, Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif, Friedensauer
Schriftenreihe. Reihe A. Theologie, vol. 4, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, France.
Oeming, M, 2006, ‘ “See, We Are Serving Today” (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theo-
logical Interpretation of the Persian Period’ in O Lipschits and M Oeming (eds.), Judah and
the Judeans in the Persian Period, pp. 571–88, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Olyan, SM, 2004, ‘Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Commu-
nity’, Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–16.
Pakkala, J, 2004, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8, Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 347, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany/
New York, NY.
Pichon, C, 1997, ‘La prohibition des mariages mixtes par Néhémie (XII 23–31)’, Vetus Testa-
mentum, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 168–99.
Polak, FH, 2006, ‘Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid
Empire’, in O Lipschits and M Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, pp.
589–628, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Rainey, AF, 1969, ‘The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River’, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology,
vol. 1, pp. 51–78.
Räisänen, H, Fiorenza ES, Sugirtharajah RS, Stendahl K, & Barr J (eds.) 2000, Reading the Bible
in the Global Village: Helsinki, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.
Sanders, J, 2005, ‘Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Fascicle 18: General Introduction and
Megilloth’, Review of Biblical Literature; available at http://www.bookreviews.org.
Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C, 2000, ‘Zur Funktion der Soziologie im Studium des Alten Testa-
ments’ Empire’, in A Lemaire and M Sæbø (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Vetus Testa-
mentum Supplements, vol. 80, pp. 179–202, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Schaper, J, 2003, ‘Priestly Purity and Social Organization in Persian Period Judah’, Biblische
Notizen, no. 118, pp. 51–7.
Schniedewind, WM, 2005, ‘Aramaic, the Death of Written Hebrew, and Language Shift in the
Persian Period’, in SL Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Oriental Institute
Seminars, vol. 2, pp. 137–48, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago,
IL.
Schwiderski, D, 2000, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars. Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage
der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,
vol. 295; Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany/New York, NY.
Sklar, J, 2005, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions, Hebrew Bible Mono-
graphs, vol. 2, Sheffield Phoenix Press, Sheffield, UK.
Smelik, W, 2007, ‘Code-switching: The Public Reading of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and
Greek’, in LD Morenz and S Schorch (eds.), Was ist ein Text? Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische
und altorientalische Perspektiven, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol.
362, pp. 123–251, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany/New York, NY.
Smith-Christopher, DL, 1994, ‘The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A
Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community’, in TC Eskenazi and KH
Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period, Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 175, pp. 243–65, Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield, UK.
Stern, E, 1982, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period (538–332 B.C.), Aris
& Phillips and Israel Exploration Society, Warminster, UK/Jerusalem, Israel.
Talstra, E, 2007, ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in B Becking and E Peels
(eds.), Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study
and Het Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn August 2006,
Oudtestamentische Studiën, vol. 55, pp. 219–36, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Throntveit, MA, 1992, Ezra-Nehemiah, Interpretation, John Knox, Louisville, KY.

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Ezra-Nehemiah in Current Research 199

Tollefson, K, 1986, ‘Nehemiah, Model for Change Agents: A Social Science Approach to
Scripture’, Christian Scholar’s Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 107–24.
Tollefson, KD, & Williamson, HGM, 1992, ‘Nehemiah as Cultural Revitalization: An Anthro-
pological Perspective’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, vol. 56, pp. 41–68.
Turner, EA, 1998, ‘Reconciliation amidst a Socio-Economic Crisis: A Rhetorical Critical
Reading of Nehemiah 5 against the Background of the Socio-Economic Situation in Judah
during the Reign of the Achaemenids’, D.Th. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South
Africa.
Ukpong, JS, 2000, ‘Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa: Historical and Herme-
neutical Directions’, in GO West and MW Dube (eds.), The Bible in Africa. Transactions,
Trajectories, and Trends, pp. 11–28, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ukpong JS, Dube MW, West GO, Masoga A, Gottwald NK, Punt J, Maluleke TS, Wimbush
VL (eds.) 2002, Reading the Bible in the Global Village: Cape Town, Global Perspectives on Biblical
Scholarship, vol. 3, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.
van den Hout, T, 2005, ‘Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: The Case of Second-millennium
Anatolia’ in SL Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Oriental Institute Seminars,
vol. 2, pp. 217–56, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
van Grol, HWM, 1997, ‘Schuld und Scham: Die Verwurzelung von Esra 9,6-7 in der Tradi-
tion’, Estudios bíblicos, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 29–52.
van Wijk-Bos, JWH, 1998, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, Westminster Bible Companion, Westmin-
ster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Venter, PM, 2005, ‘Die skuldgebed in Esra 9:6-15’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies, vol. 61, nos
1–2, pp. 545–62.
Washington, HC, 2003, ‘Israel’s Holy Seed and the Foreign Women of Ezra-Nehemiah: A
Kristevan Reading’, Biblical Interpretation, vol. 11, nos 3–4, pp. 427–37.
Watts, JW, 2007, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Weanzana, N, 2006, ‘Ezra and Nehemiah,’ in T Adeyemo (ed.), Africa Bible Commentary, pp.
531–58, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Weis, RD, 2002, ‘Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Making of Critical Editions of the Hebrew
Bible’, TC: A Journal of Textual Criticism, vol. 7, available at http://purl.org/TC.
Williamson, HGM, 1985, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 16, Word, Dallas, TX.
–––, 2004, Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, Forschungen zum Alten Testament,
vol. 38, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany.
Wilson, RR, 1984, Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament, Guides to Biblical Scholarship,
Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Woods, C, 2005, ‘Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian’ in SL Sanders
(ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Oriental Institute Seminars, vol. 2, pp. 91–120,
The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Wright, JL, 2004, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers, Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 348, de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
Zlotnick-Sivan, H, 2000, ‘The Silent Women of Yehud: Notes on Ezra 9-10’, Journal of Jewish
Studies, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 3–18.

© 2009 The Author Religion Compass 3/2 (2009): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00122.x

Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd