A Comment on Ehud Ben Zvi’s Total Exile, Empty Land and the General Intellectual Discourse in Yehud.

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 pentateuchal, 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-Nehemiah 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.

Keywords

• De-Ideologisation
• “Empty Land”
• Myth
• Ezra-Nehemiah
• Land Dispute
• Theology of Reconstruction