Studies in the Pentateuch (review)

Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 126 Reviews 11:19, which is part of a "confession," so too is such tenninology to be found in 11:15 and 12:3 which, though not part of the "confessions:' do occur shortly before and shortly after the other passage. Nor is there any discussion of the significance of the drought references in 14:1-6, 22 and 15:18. A further problem is Diamond's separation of the confessional passages into distinct units, even when he acknowledges the obvious links between them. So, why is there no attempt to see 11:18-12:6 as one unit? Why isn't 15:10-21 one unit (with vv. 15-21 a divine response to the prophet's complaint to God)? Furthermore, Diamond often overlooks parallel passages which would greatly aid his exegesis. For example, in conjunction with 12:1-6 one should examine Hos 4:1-4; Jer 5:11-13 and 9:3-7. Despite these deficiencies and the dense prose, Diamond does much admirable close reading, and his understanding of Jeremiah 11-20 as primarily concerned with theodicy is instructive. His review and critique of previous scholarship is also well thought out. It is true that he nowhere argues cogently for his assumption that the redaction of 11-20 must be considered deuteronomistic. Also, his bibliography is diminished by the absence of Hebrew scholarship. Nonetheless, the book contains considerable deep analysis. Thus, it is not an insignificant contribution to the study of Jeremiah's laments. Jeremiah Unterman Hebrew College - Hartford West Hartford, CT 06117 STUDIES IN THE PENT ATE UCH. J. A. Emerton, ed. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 41. Pp. 253. New York: E.1. Brill, 1991. Cloth, $61.11. This volume is a collection of diverse essays on different aspects of the Pentateuch. Only a minority have implications for current debate about the composition of the Pentateuch as a whole. R. S. Hess, "Splitting the Adam: the Usage of 'adam in Genesis I-V," points out that the word is used in two different senses in chaps. 1 and 2-3, but argues that this is a literary matter without implications for source Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 127 Reviews analysis. He does not accept P. Trible's interpretation of 'adam in chap. 1 as an undifferentiated "earth-creature." H. N. Wallace, "The Toledot of Adam," postulates a final Pentateuchal redactor not identical with P, who was imaginative and creative. Gen 5:16 :8 provide a good example of his work. This positive assessment of redactional activity may serve to stimulate further discussion. T. D. Alexander, "The Hagar Traditions in Genesis XVI and XXI," rejects the view that these chapters belong to different sources. Some "revision of the Documentary Hypothesis" is thus called for. M. White, "The Elohistic Depiction of Aaron: A Study in the LeviteZadokite Controversy," assumes the reality of J and E while accepting a substantial Deuteronomistic redaction of Genesis-Numbers. The aim of the article, which is mainly concerned with Exodus 32 and Numbers 12, is to show that the Elohist's account of the events narrated in these chapters is a polemic directed against the non-Levitical Zadokite (Aaronid) priesthood of Jerusalem. Three articles are studies of texts from Deuteronomy. D. J. Reimer, "Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68 Reconsidered," discusses the origin of the topic of the prohibition against a return to Egypt and the relationship between these two verses. He concludes that Deut 28:68, which forms part of the list of curses which will befall a disobedient people, is a negative reflection of Moses's assurance that Yahweh's people will never again see Egypt (Exod 14:13), and that this anti-Egyptian topic was subsequently introduced into the law of the king in chap. 17. Reimer's exilic dating of these texts is perhaps too restrictive . D. R. Daniels, "The Creed of Deuteronomy XXVI Revisited," defends von Rad's opinion that this "little credo" (Deut 26:5-10) comes from an early period in Israel's history. It must, in fact, be pre-monarchical, since the continuous hostility between Israel and the Aramaeans throughout the period of the monarchy would have precluded...