Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian's Use of the Tetrateuchal Narratives (review)

Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 405 Reviews but the present book still offers a welcome and credible beginning to what the present reviewer deems to be an important conversation. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. North Park Theological Seminary Chicago, IL 60625 rhubbard@northpark.edu RETELLING THE TORAH: THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORIAN’S USE OF THE TETRATEUCHAL NARRATIVES. By John E. Harvey. JSOTSup 403. Pp. viii + 127. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Cloth, $105.00. This volume is a revision of the author’s doctoral dissertation completed at the University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, in 1997 (p. vii). In a brief Introduction (pp. 1–6), Harvey states the thesis of the book is to argue that “the Deuteronomic Historian’s storied world was shaped by this Tetrateuch, such that he patterns many of his stories after Tetrateuchal accounts” (p. 1). Chapter 1 is titled “Dtr’s Use of His Torah in Deuteronomy 1–3” (pp. 7– 32). In it the author argues that Dtr based his story on the synoptic Tetrateuchal accounts, that Dtr used a unified Tetrateuch rather than isolated accounts, that in his recasting of the synoptic Tetrateuchal accounts Dtr principally relied on his memory of the written record rather than the written record itself, and that Dtr’s retelling of the synoptic Tetrateuchal accounts was creative and consistent with his concerns elsewhere in the Deuteronomic History. Harvey demonstrates these points by analyzing corresponding accounts between parallel texts, including Numbers 13–14 and Deut 1:6–8, 19–46 (the spies and their failure). For example, the references to Joshua and Caleb in Deut 1:35–36, 38 only make sense if knowledge of them from Numbers 14 is presumed. This discussion leads Harvey to assert that Dtr’s work does not suggest literary dependence but dependence upon his “impressive, yet fallible memory” (p. 29). In Chapter 2, “The Genesis of the Parallel Narratives” (pp. 33–53), Harvey outlines eight criteria for determining the direction of dependence between parallel accounts. A narrative is likely to be based on a given Tetrateuchal account if: 1). a “narrative in the Former Prophets explicitly refers to the corresponding Tetrateuchal account” (cross reference) (p. 42); 2). “a narrative in the Former Prophets presupposes knowledge that is furnished in the corresponding Tetrateuchal account” (assumed knowledge) (p. 43); 3). “two or more narratives in the Former Prophets share parallels with a single Tetrateuchal narrative, and it can be shown that one such narrative in Hebrew Studies 46 (2005) 406 Reviews the Former Prophets is derivative” (multiple occurrence) (p. 43); 4). “the concern of a narrative in the Former Prophets is consistent with, or complemented by, the parallels with the corresponding Tetrateuchal account” (thematic congruence) (p. 43); 5). “an account in the Former Prophets shares parallels with two or more redactional layers of the corresponding Tetrateuchal account” (source criticism) (p. 51); 6). “a narrative in the Former Prophets includes a feature that is grammatically or contextually incongruous, but this same feature is grammatically and contextually sound in the corresponding Tetrateuchal account” (incongruity) (p. 52); 7). “various features of an account in the Former Prophets are found in other narratives in the DtrH that are demonstrably based on corresponding Tetrateuchal narratives” (Deuteronomistic tendency) (p. 53); and 8). “a narrative in the Former Prophets exists in a complex of narratives that are demonstrably dependent on Tetrateuchal accounts” (context) (p. 53). In Chapter 3, “Dtr’s Torah-Consciousness” (pp. 54–65), Harvey uses examples mostly from 1 and 2 Samuel to argue that the parallels that Dtr drew came naturally out of his mindset and worldview, saturated with the Tetrateuch. Chapter 4 is called “Inversion of Torah Schemata” (pp. 66–81). In it the author illustrates how Dtr deliberately draws parallels only to indicate the drastically differing outcome of the narratives. This method (“inversion”) most commonly occurs with depictions of Moses-like figures. For example: “Although Elijah was a prophet like Moses, unlike his exemplar, he succumbed to fear and despondency. Other leaders frustrated the Moses schema by following the Mosaic trail only to stop short of delivering the nation” (p. 78). This discussion is followed by a table charting “Moses and his Deuteronomistic Counterparts” (pp. 79–81). Chapter 5, “Judgment...