In Rest, we find Daniel Kim’s revised dissertation, which he completed under Andrew Clarke at Aberdeen in 2015. Kim compares the concept of rest in Mesopotamian literature (or ML; pp. 13–79) with that in the Deuteronomistic History (pp. 81–200) and Chronicles (pp. 207–272), focusing on a few key terms: nâḫu and pašāḫu in ML and נוח/מנוחה in Hebrew.1In his analysis of the Mesopotamian literature (pp. 13–79), Kim surveys Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the Poem of Erra as well as, to a lesser degree, the Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon and the Annals of Ashurbanipal (pp. 65–74). He identifies four categories of rest in ML: “(a) rest as divine authority; (b) rest as divine provision; (c) rest in a divine abode; (d) and rest as divine appeasement” (p. 16).2 Kim is dependent on a small number of secondary sources, and he accepts their conclusions readily without clearly engaging them.3Kim’s lexical analysis of נוח (pp. 93–95) is limited to the hiphil stem and focused on the Deuteronomistic History. Curiously, Kim does not refer to previously mentioned journal articles or cite entries from lexicons on נוח in his own analysis.4 Instead, he seeks to collapse the theological use of נוח into the secular use so that he rarely finds a passage in which נוח simply means “put, place.” Unfortunately, this often makes Kim’s exegesis feel strained. For example, he asserts that when Yhwh allows nations to “rest” (that is, leaves them) in Canaan to test Israel, it is because “rest” has been “given (albeit in a different form) to the foreign nations to bring unrest to Israel” (p. 126–9). Similarly, when Gideon “rests” the offering before the angel of Yhwh in Judg 6:18, Kim infers a subtle theological affirmation of Deuteronomic rest (pp. 136–37). Regarding the “resting” of the tables in the temple in 2 Chr 4:8, Kim argues that “the Chronicler connects the ten tables in 2 Chr 4:8 with the table(s) for the bread of presence in 2 Chr 4:19” and that this connects these tables to creation, the presence of Yhwh, and the ark. For Kim, these theological associations explain the Chronicler’s decision to use נוח rather than נתן or קום (pp. 235–238). Some of Kim’s more modest exegetical proposals are compelling. For example, Kim’s reading of the promise to David in 2 Sam 7:1 and 11 (pp. 166–76) presents helpful arguments regarding source and textual criticism, and, in this case, נוח is associated with the kind of rest with which Kim is particularly interested. However, Kim fills many occurrences of נוח with more theological significance than is necessitated or implied by the context.In parallel with von Rad’s There Remains Still a Rest, Kim’s assessment of rest in the Deuteronomistic History is that it is “singular, permanent, spatial and fulfilled” (that is, oriented to the land); whereas, in Chronicles, it is “many, transient, relational, and eschatological” (p. 276).5 In comparison to ML, the differences in usage make comparison difficult. While rest is generally experienced by deities in Kim’s examples from Mesopotamia, in the biblical literature rest is almost exclusively experienced by humans.6 This results in a mismatch in the genre and content of texts and, thus, in the type of “rest” being compared.Some readers may find Kim’s exegesis creative and his suggestions stimulating food for thought. I was frustrated, though, by his engagement with both the Mesopotamian texts, which I found too limited, and with the biblical literature, which I found too narrow in its lexical analysis and too hasty in its transfer of theological significance into the use of נוח.