Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>]

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