Hannah K. HARRINGTON. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2022. pp. Xxxiii + 529. $52.00. Hb. ISBN 9780802825483. Reviewed by Daniel L. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 90278.

The books of Ezra-Nehemiah have occupied sustained attention in recent decades as Biblical historians pay increasing attention to the crisis of the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent Babylonian Exile (597/587 BCE) and the aftermath, especially the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE, and the changes in the lives of the Judean peoples that followed as a direct result. The “Persian Period” (539 – 333 BCE), of course, is the central subject of these two short Biblical books which allude to events immediately following Cyrus’ victory over Babylon in 539 BCE, but then jump to approx. 450 BCE to begin the stories of two later Jewish leaders in the Persian Period, Ezra and Nehemiah. As one of our only sources for this time period, the books have been the subject of considerable analysis. This means, of course, that the study of Ezra-Nehemiah in the modern world is a mine-field with several competing ideas and theories. Nonetheless, Harrington is generally fair to many of these different perspectives (although omitting some of the more critical perspectives), but one misses a reading of Sean Burt’s analysis of Nehemiah that points out, for example, that there are parallels to the “Court Tale” (Daniel, Esther) in much of the earlier Nehemiah “memoir”, casting doubts on many aspects of the story (2014, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the Nehemiah Memoir). Harrington’s commentary, on the other hand, assumes a great deal of reliable historical background in these books.

Harrington’s textual analysis and commentary is built upon the idea that at the center of these two books are “memoirs” that come from the historical figures of Ezra and Nehemiah themselves, with material that has been subsequently added. On this, she is in good company, but there are a variety of perspectives about the historical reliability of the majority of this material. Harrington’s line is fairly moderate throughout – as indicated by her observation that there are is no “judgment” pronounced against Persian Rule in all Scripture (41) – yet Ezra’s famous prayer in Neh. 9:36 declares that the returned exiles are “slaves” in their own land – a notion that surely does not constitute an entirely cheerful assessment of Persian rule? Related to this, this reviewer missed an inclusion of the insights of Avraham Faust’s 2012 archaeological work: Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation, which would have helpfully supplemented her work with Oded Lipschit’s important archaeological work on this entire period of Biblical history. Part of the moderate line of this commentary is also evident in the absence of a strong emphasis on inter-textual debates or disagreements. In an extended discussion of the (in)famous “mixed marriage” crisis where Ezra breaks up a series of marriages with “foreigners” (esp. Ezra 9-10), Harrington is only mildly critical of these actions, nor does she point out that the story of Ruth (and passages in Isaiah like 56:3(!), for example, that may well indicate serious debates among the post-exilic communities on precisely these matters. She does take up ideas about Ruth as counter-debates, however, in her discussion of a different matter, namely conversion issues (270ff). The assumption seems to be that the “foreign women” Ezra sent away were not “converts,” but this is never stated. Harrington thus avoids the possibility of serious inter-textual debates in this time period. Furthermore, she cites (more than once) 2 Cor. 6:14 in defense of the idea that Paul’s concern about being “unequally yoked” may relate to these episodes in Ezra-Nehemiah (a highly debatable point). One might reply that Paul’s insistence on Gentile inclusion is surely a more directly relevant case, but suffice it to say that issues in Ezra-Nehemiah can quickly expand into quite heated modern issues. This is, of course, part of the fascination of these books.

In sum, Harrington’s commentary is clearly in a (largely Protestant) Christian tradition, and many of the sections of commentary conclude the reflections on these passages by drawing analogies with New Testament issues and texts. There is not, however, a particularly insistent apologetic line in these comments, which maintain the same generally moderate historical-critical perspective that this reviewer noted already. Harrington’s commentary is a substantial work and a worthy contribution to both the helpful “New International Commentary on the Old Testament” series produced by Eerdmans, and continued debate on the books of Ezra-Nehemiah.