Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (review)

Hebrew Studies 32 (1991) 107 Reviews poem whole is poetry, not the techniques and tensions it involves. Grossberg seems to know, seems to sense that poetry resides in the ability to write good and beautiful sentences, but he does not resist the centripetal forces of reader and scholarly response. Brian Peckham Regis College Toronto. Ontario M4Y 2R5 GENESIS 15: A THEOLOGICAL COMPENDIUM OF PENTA· TEUCHAL HISTORY. By John Ha. BZAW 181. Pp. xii + 244. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Cloth, DM 82. This book is a slightly revised edition of Ha's doctoral dissertation under J. A. Soggin, defended at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome. This refreshing study of Gen 15 is not only an important contribution to the understanding of this chapter, but also to Pentateuchal research in general and. therefore. highly recommended. Part one studies the unity of Gen 15 and the prophetic influence. Ha offers his own translation of this text whose difficulties are well known. For the 'n':J PIOC t:J' in v. 2, Ha follows L. A. Snijders and translates "and the usurper of my house-he is a Damascene-is Eliezer." The hostile character of Eliezer may become a problem in Gen 24:2, but Ha solves it nicely (pp. 19-22). He does not consider i1~lZln in v. 12b a gloss and translates "the fear of a great darkness fell upon him" (p. 25). Ha lists all the problems of Gen 15 such as doublets and discrepancies which have raised the problem of the tradition-history and the literary sources of the chapter for many years. Ha summarizes all the given solutions, and as one might expect in a dissertation, he tries to be exhaustive. He gives a two page table, starting with Gunkel, Skinner, Smend, etc. and running to De Pury, Zimmerli. and Anbar. The table indicates that the source-analysts agree on only a very few verses and that the remaining verses have been attributed by different scholars to different sources. A few scholars, however, treat Gen 15 as a literary unit. How the work of Van Seters can be called "structural analysis" (p. 3) is a mystery to me. Ha's thesis attempts to demonstrate that Gen 15 is a literary unit; that is, Hebrew Studies 32 (1991) 108 Reviews 1. the repetitions are not mere repetitions but do in fact contain a certain progression of thought from one to the other-thus the term "progressive doublets"; 2. there are in fact no discrepancies in the chapter; 3. its antitheses are not contradictions but, as in the case ofthe progressive doublets, are marked by a progression from thesis to antithesis; and 4. there is no real break of continuity but, on the contrary, an unbroken thread ties up all the verses and themes into a neat whole. (p. 39) Ha goes through the chapter verse-by-verse to prove these four points. Generally, he does it convincingly, although several points are disputable. Ha does not accept that the "reward" (v. 1) could be for what Abraham did in chap. 14, since the five local kings and Lot should have been the ones paying this reward, and also since Abraham refused the offer. But could we not say that Abraham receives a divine reward precisely because he refuses the human reward? Ha finds it difficult to reconcile YHWH taking Abraham "outside" (v. 5) when there is no indication that he was "inside" (p. 42). He, therefore, gives the term an "a-local" sense and suggests a theological interpretation: "to look 'outside' of himself into all that YHWH could offer and get out of his narrow preoccupation with a bloodheir" (p. 46). Besides being a false problem, his proposition is not very convincing. Abraham's question (v. 8) seems to contradict his faith (v. 6). Ha suggests that. even though the word n'R is not used, Abraham's question is a request for a sign rather than an expression of doubt (p. 49). I wonder how this solves the problem. since the request for a sign could well be prompted by doubt. Ha himself later interprets the question of Moses as an expression of doubt and says...