For my write-up today of John Van Seters' Prologue to History, I have three items:
1. In Chapter 11, "Genealogies and Itineraries", on page 212, Van Seters states:
"The example from Dionysius makes it quite clear that we are dealing with a western form of tradition accounting for national origins that includes the notion of ancestors migrating from places of older and higher civilizations to new regions, there eventually to displace the unworthy native population. The Greek tradition also combines itinerary with genealogies and etiologies in a complex narrative structure. Migrations by founders or ancestors are often undertaken at the command of a deity or in response to an oracle. All of these features have direct and obvious parallels in the patriarchal stories. The biblical stories of Abraham and Jacob follow this same pattern. They both migrate from Mesopotamia at the urging of a divine oracle and live among a native population whom they eventually displace. Itinerary, genealogy, and etiology are mixed in the narrative to the same degree."
Van Seters acknowledges that Dionysius wrote "several centuries later than the Yahwist", but he says that "Dionysius refers to older authorities for [his] information", plus his "genre of 'antiquities' goes back to early Greek historiography" (page 211).
I want to note something that Van Seters says on page 239, which is actually in a later chapter: "classical antiquarian traditions of Greece and Rome" had conflicting origin traditions existing side by side, some "presenting eponymous ancestors or heroes as founding fathers", and others referring to "groups migrating from one region to another, conquering the local inhabitants." According to Van Seters, we see this sort of thing in the Hebrew Bible. Deuteronomy 2 says that God gave the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites their land, which, for Van Seters, indicates conquest (see v 12; cp. Judges 11:24). But Genesis portrays Ammon and Moab being born to Lot in the highlands east of the Jordan Valley, which was the land of the Ammonites and the Moabites; in this story, they were born in their land, rather than attaining it by force of arms. Genesis 36 simply states that Esau settled in Seir and places the Horites in his genealogy, which differs from Deuteronomy 2:12, 22's notion that the Edomites dispossessed and destroyed the Horites. Moreover, Van Seters notes, Genesis 38 presents Judah settling in the land where the tribe of Judah would be located. There is a tradition that it gained its land by conquest, and a tradition that it just settled there. Both coexist in the Hebrew Bible.
I do not know why Van Seters believes that the Greeks and the Jews wrote a historiography that presents wanderers becoming the founders of nations---if it has to do with creating a framework for heroes or lessons learned along the way, as the authors account for the origins of peoples, nations, and cities.
2. In Chapter 13, "The Land-Promise Theme in the Old Testament", Van Seters acknowledges a proto-D as well as post-Deuteronomistic aspects in J. Proto-D is in the Book of Hosea, which holds that possession of the land is conditional on the obedience of its inhabitants. That's essentially the message of the Book of Deuteronomy, and also some of the prophets, such as Ezekiel. Some have claimed that there are Deuteronomistic additions to J---particularly the parts about Abraham obeying God's commandments. But, according to Van Seters, such parts are post-Deuteronomistic, not Deuteronomistic: if I'm not mistaken, he thinks that J here imitates the language of the Deuteronomist, but the parts are not Deuteronomistic, for they differ profoundly from Deuteronomistic ideology. The Deuteronomist thought that possession of the land depended on obedience, but J holds that the obedience of Abraham brings a sort of imputed merit to his descendants, that God blesses Israel on account of the righteousness of Abraham, meaning that her covenant with God is unconditional: God is faithful to her, even when she is bad, on account of the righteousness of her ancestor, Abraham. (Van Seters says that even the Deuteronomist had a similar concept---only he applied it to the monarchy, affirming that God showed mercy to the kings of Judah on account of their ancestor, David.)
Technically speaking, Van Seters may be correct that God in some of the prophets (e.g., Hosea, Ezekiel) does not restore Israel on account of the righteousness of Abraham. But it does appear that God has some sort of unconditional covenant with Israel in these books, for God resolves to restore her to her land, after punishing her for her sins. In this case, the unconditional covenant may be based, not on the righteousness of Abraham, but on God's love for Israel, or God's regard for his name.
3. In Genesis 12:3, God promises Abram that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him, and that God will bless those who bless Abraham, and curse those who curse him. Van Seters interprets this verse in light of two things: "the so-called Rassam cylinder of Ashurbanipal's annals" (page 254), and Psalm 72:17. In the Rassam cylinder of Ashurbanipal, Gyges of Lydia prospers in battle when he submits to Ashurbanipal of Assyria's lordship and invokes his name, but he fails when he hardens his heart and does not invoke Ashurbanipal's name. And Psalm 72:17 affirms that all nations will be blessed through the Davidic king and call him blessed. For Van Seters, what we see in the story of Abraham is the democratization of the monarchy in the exile, as things that applied to ancient Near Eastern monarchies are related to Israel as a whole.