A comment on Ehud Ben Zvi's "total exile, empty land and the general intellectual discourse in Yehud"
Date
2017
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Old Testament Society of South Africa
Abstract
The Judeans of the pre-late-Persian period could not interpret the "empty land" myth other than in an inclusive manner. This approach is also reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah, according to Ehud Ben Zvi. This interpretation is clear from his social memory analysis of the penta-teuchal, Deuteronomistic history and prophetic literature. The logic in his argument is so persuasive that it compels a review of one's stance on the exclusivity of Ezra-Nehemiah. After some engagement with Ezra-Nehemiah, this paper offers the argument that Ezra-Nehe-miah is exclusive, and that the "empty land" myth is applied in an exclusive manner. Of great concern, however, is the fact that Ben Zvi's argument comes at a time when Africans are engaged in a quest for a biblical paradigm for a theology of reconstruction that is currently contemplated. Of more concern is that some scholars suggest Nehemiah as a paradigm for a theology of reconstruction in Africa, just as Moses and the Exodus, propound a theology of liberation. For historical reasons, this paper rejects Nehemiah as a biblical paradigm for a theology of reconstruction in Africa. This paper therefore engages with Ben Zvi's paper titled "Total Exile, Empty Land and the General Intellectual Discourse in Yehud" against this background.
Description
CITATION: Cezula, N. 2017. A comment on Ehud Ben Zvi's "total exile, empty land and the general intellectual discourse in Yehud". Old Testament Essays, 30(2):592-608, doi:10.17159/2312-3621/2017/v30n3a4
The original publication is available at http://www.scielo.org.za
The original publication is available at http://www.scielo.org.za
Keywords
Bible. Ezra-Nehemiah -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Citation
Cezula, N. 2017. A comment on Ehud Ben Zvi's "total exile, empty land and the general intellectual discourse in Yehud". Old Testament Essays, 30(2):592-608, doi:10.17159/2312-3621/2017/v30n3a4