Reviewed by: Re-Imagining Abraham: A Re-Assessment of the Influence of Deuteronomism in Genesis by Megan Warner R. J. Balfour Megan Warner. Re-Imagining Abraham: A Re-Assessment of the Influence of Deuteronomism in Genesis. Oudtestamentische Studiën 72. Leiden: Brill, 2018. xiv + 259 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009419000552 The recognition that certain passages in Genesis demonstrate influences stemming from Deuteronomy and its related literature is one of the long-standing conclusions of pentateuchal criticism. Megan Warner, in her stimulating recent study, based on her doctoral dissertation, reexamines this notion in relation to four passages that have traditionally been most closely associated with a process of Deuteronom(ist)ic editing. Throughout her study Warner borrows the term "Deuteronom(ist)ic" from Hans Ausloos's recent monograph The Deuteronomist's History (Leiden: Brill, 2015) and uses it as a "means of signifying relatedness to Deuteronomy or other material within the Deuteronomistic Canon" (2n5). The passages examined are: Genesis 15; 18:17–19; 22:15–18; and 26:3–5. Warner's central suggestion is that these four passages employ Deuteronom(ist)-ic language not because they originate with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor, but because they seek to review, or even correct, elements of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideology. The study follows a careful and coherent pattern. In chapter 1, Warner offers a survey of the history of Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction in Genesis and raises certain methodological concerns pertinent to her study. In chapters 2–5 Warner examines each of the passages (she refers to these as "focus texts") in their wider context (labelled "host texts"). One of the great strengths of Warner's study is that it seeks to grasp the compositional logic of the redactional work being examined. By engaging instances of redaction within their narrative contexts Warner offers thorough and careful readings of these key chapters (Genesis 15; 18; 22; 26) as they stand, while using the logic of their final form to shed light on how the constitutive parts of the text function. Finally, in chapter 6, Warner offers a summary of her findings, suggesting that the passages in question are not to be ascribed to Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. Instead, they fit better within the scope of the Holiness (H) legislators (who many scholars argue penned Leviticus 17–27), and are thus to be dated later than more traditional Deuteronom(ist)ic material; as such, they can be expected to challenge certain Deuteronom(ist)ic notions. The only potential idiosyncrasy in Warner's arrangement is the reversing of the passages' order. The latest passage, literarily speaking, Genesis 26:3–5, is discussed first in chapter 2, and the rest of the book follows this reverse structure. There is good reason for this move; as Warner rightly points out, Genesis 26:3–5is the passage that is most apparently Deuteronom(ist)ic. In this sense it provides an ideal initial test case for her study. Rather than examining each chapter in detail, I offer a few further reflections on Warner's discussion of Genesis 26:3–5, which may be taken as broadly indicative for Warner's wider argument. [End Page 439] In chapter 2 Warner argues that Deuteronom(ist)ic concerns are revised in Genesis 26 in two ways. First, Genesis 26 presents Isaac inhabiting the land alongside Philistine contemporaries in an ultimately, if not initially, harmonious manner. The positioning of the land oath in Genesis 26:3, which resonates with Deuteronom(ist)ic language and concerns, potentially presents Isaac's possession of the land in a manner at odds with Deuteronomy's land-conquest ideology. Second, Warner identifies 1 Kings 2 and 11, Solomon's succession narratives, as a possible Vorlage for Genesis 26. The use of terms traditionally associated with Deuteronomy, and employed in 1 Kings 2 and 11, as well as in Genesis 26:5 ("obeyed," "kept," "charge," "commandments," "statutes," and "instructions"; cf. Deut 11:1, 28:1; 1 Kgs 2:3–4, 11:34, 11:38), serves to root God's promise in the obedience of Abraham. Hence, according to Warner, the pronounced promise is only conditional on the obedience of Abraham and not on the obedience of each subsequent generation...
Read full abstract