Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - The Sons of El

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: The Sons of El
  • Date: 20 Jan 99 23:45:39 -0800


Dave,

Perhaps the "reply" option does not reach the entire list for some reason. I
suppose I will have copy the posts onto a fresh email.

As for Deut 32:7-9, there considerations are the most important in my
interpretation:

1) The song has incorporated an old tradition who content is in tension with
its present context.

2) Elyon is here not Yahweh.

-- The "El" of Israel was not Yahweh
-- El, not Yahweh, was worshipped at Bethel, Peniel, at the temple of El
Berith in Shechem.
-- El of Israel is a distinct god who appears in the cult legend where El
wrestles with Jacob.
-- The E (Ex 3) and P (Ex 6) traditions which equate El and Yahweh are
motivated by religious syncretism.

3) Elyon is a shortened form of El Elyon.
-- See Gen 14:20

3) The LXX has the original reading presupposing something like "sons of El."
-- the more difficult reading. The MT is corrective.

4) The "sons of El" are high ranking gods in El's pantheon (Ps 29; Ps 82;
Canaanite mythology.

-- The interpretation which sees here angels comes from a very late period
(Daniel) and reflects apocalypticism. This text is not apocalyptic.

-- The rival interpretation that sees the "sons of El" as human beings is not
supported by Ps 29 where the term also occurs.

-- Interpreting the sons of El as human beings also makes it virtually
impossible to make sense of the passage, especially that the nations were
divided by the number of the sons of El.

Resistance to my interpretation comes mainly form the uncritical assumption
that here Elyon and Yahweh are the same and that a tradition in tension with
it context would not be permitted. As the Pentateuch now stands, there are
many tensions present in it due to later writer and editors incorporating
pre-given traditions that contain details of content that are not
well-integrated into their final context. I think it may be anachronistic
thinking to expect that the incorporation of earlier traditions had to be
precisely harmonized in every way with their new literary contexts.

Finally, this interpretation is theologically objectionable to certain
schools of religious thought. Such considerations, however, should not play
a part in the objective and unbiased evaluation of any given interpretation.
That this interpretation can be found to be objectionable to the pious is
already indicated by the MT's alternative reading. In this regard, my
interpretation faces inherent resistance which in a more perfect world would
not be an issue.


Question: I am right. Is it possible that a reply will not be distributed
to the entire list, Jonathan? I think I read something to that effect on the
old location. Does it apply here as well?

LMB

Lloyd,
Did you post your message to the list? If so, I haven't received it.
Apparently I also never received the post in which you gave your
reasons for accepting the LXX reading. Technology is wonderful
when it works...
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.



Lloyd Barre

barre AT c-zone.net
http://angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page