Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

John,

> **--------- Original Message follows... 

>Lloyd Barre wrote:

> . . .
> My first question concerns the citation of these verses within the context 
> >of the song.  Is the singer alluding to an ancient event, or an ancient 
> >teaching or both?  The issue impacts the interpretation of these verses 
> >since it may be that the teaching alluded to contains perspectives that do 
> >not accord with the viewpoint of the song, i.e. its monotheism.  The song 
> >may in fact be reinterpreting the older tradition by giving it this new 
> >context.  What do you think?

I think that the context of this song requires the interpretation of
Elyon as a title for Yhwh, for all the reasons I mentioned before. 

I have given my reasons for seeing El Elyon and Yahweh as originally distinct 
deities in ancient Israel.

 The
"ancient event" in my understanding is the apportioning of the nations
as described in Genesis 10.

I found your argument here to be strained and unrealistic compared to mine.

  I think there is a methodological problem
with using Deuteronomy 32 as both (1) evidence of such an older
tradition as you describe (2) evidence for its reinterpretation. 
Basically, if someone was "reinterpreting," they would get rid of the
"old" interpretation rather than leaving us confused about whether Yhwh
is El or a son of El.

I disagree.  There is plenty of evidence that old traditions have been taken 
over to create more complex documents that generate many tensions in the 
final form.  The Pentateuch for example.

  I also wonder what you do with the fact that on
your interpretation, Baal is allotted (by El) the land of Canaan -
doesn't that mean Yhwh stole it from Baal?

It was just illustrative.  The relationship of Baal and Yahweh was one of 
severe rivalry, maybe precisely because they were at least implicitly 
assigned the same domain.  Yahweh did indeed invade Baal's realm.

 Also, there are plenty of
passages that suggest Israel is not viewed as a prize possession of Yhwh
(I think you're implying that as pre-eminent son of El, Yhwh gets the
best - I think on that view, Yhwh should get Egypt, maybe, the world's
first great nation - not a bunch of homeless slaves!!).

I have backed off from the view that Yahweh is favored in the passage.

But methodologically, if you are free to take passages OUT of context to
mean something they can't mean IN context, it seems to me you can
hypothesize just about anything you want, and your conclusion can never
be proven right or wrong - so isn't it an exercise in futility?

The more basic question is whether the tradition cited is older than the 
Song.  I think its content bears that out and there is also the introduction 
to explicitly relates it to something old, something that only the fathers 
and the grandfathers know about.  Why are they mention?  Anyone can have 
knowledge of a tradition that describes events of old.  The meaning seems to 
be that they age makes them privy to this old tradition.
 . . .
> Were you aware that the bene elim appear in Psalm 29 where they are 
> >celestial beings?  This psalm is also thought to have close connection 
> with >Canaanite mythology in which El, Baal, Mot and other lesser deities 
> popular >the story?  So should we interpret these sons to be celestial or 
> >terrestrial beings?

I am aware of the suggested reading beney eliym as beney El (seeing
mimmation), and it's true that in Ugaritic mythology El's sons are the
gods, but in the passage under discussion (Deuteronomy 32) the sons of
God are his people:

Arguments from context:

v. 5 negatively - they are not his children when they act corruptly
v. 6 He is your Father who created you (qnh), made you (`&h) and
established you
v. 18 You neglected the rock who begot you (yld) . . . who gave birth to
you (xwl)

I also mentioned Deut 14:1 (you are sons of Yhwh your God) and Hos
1:10/2:1 where God's people are the sons of El.
 
This is a possible interpretation, but I think it runs into difficulties when 
applied to the text.

  Ps 29:1 makes quite
good sense as an exhortation to God's people (whether again you have the
sons of El, or beney eliym, whatever that means), whereas I don't think
it makes good sense to see the psalmist exhorting heavenly beings to
"worship Yhwh in holy array" (v. 4) (cf. 1 Chron 16:29; Ps 110:3; same
or similar exhortations are addressed to God's people).

I think it makes better sense to see here a celestial scene as the sons of El 
behold Yahweh's manifestation in the storm.  The language is much closer to 
Canaanite mythology that to general exhortation that Yahweh's people praise 
him.  In this I think I have much support from interpreters of Ps 29.

I did read a book advocating that Psalm 29 was evidence that Israelites
wanted "a Baal of their own," entirely on the interpretation of the
preposition `al (v. 3) as meaning "against" (i.e. Yhwh is against Yam
like Baal is), instead of "upon."  
I think it's good to keep in mind
that parallels with Ugaritic material may have a polemical element, or
some other difference.  E.g. Baal defeats Yam and builds a temple.  Yhwh
dries up the Red Sea and "builds" a temple, yet his temple is not a
building, but his people.

Yahweh had both a celestial temple and a terrestrial one after Solomon.  I 
can't think of an instance where Israel is regarded as Yahweh's temple.  That 
seems to be a New Testament concept.

  It's also good to keep in mind that such
parallels are not necessarily restricted to Baalism; there are many more
and specific polemics against Egyptian religion in the crossing of the
sea episode.  I.e. Pharaoh, the sun god on earth, was supposed to have
power over supernatural fire, the east wind was supposed to be favorable
for Pharaoh, the sun god was supposed to have victory over the great
serpent Apep every evening and morning, and Pharaoh was supposed to by
this victory have victory over his own enemies (but Pharaoh was defeated
at both dusk and dawn), etc. etc.

> There is also Job, in which the sons of 'elohim appear before Yahweh in the 
> celestial court.

Yes, I'd agree there the beney Elohim are angels.

Angels?  How do you get that?

  Also the Seraphim,
Isaiah 6 (it's interesting to follow up on the translation of Seraphim
as venomous serpents, which is its meaning everywhere else - the
Seraphim of
Isaiah 6 are basically anti-types of the serpent of Genesis 3).

I don't think so.

>Psalm 82 also has 'elohim presiding over the gods who were assigned to 
>>dispense justice in their assigned realms but failed to do so.

There I take Elohim as in the law of Moses where it refers collectively
to the human judges (otherwise God refers to himself in the 3rd person,
which is I suppose not impossible but doesn't seem to be the natural
reading) - Exod 22:9, where the verb is plural - "whom the judges
(elohim) condemn shall pay a fine."

Elohim condemns the gods to die like men.  The punishment would mean nothing 
if they were already mortal human beings.

>Actually, the celestial is very populated.

Agreed!!  But none of the celestial scenes have Yhwh as a son of El or
distinguish Yhwh and El in any way.

El and Yahweh can be isolated as separate gods on other grounds.  See above.  
Psalm 29 has Yahweh as one of the sons of El.  Here he is being acclaimed as 
preeminent among them.  The others are to ascribe glory to him which they do.

> Elisha prayed that his servant would have his eyes opened to see the myriad 
> of invisible beings  who stood ready to fight.  There is also Miciah ben 
> Imlah's vision as well as that of Isaiah, and Jacob dream that saw many 
> mala'kim ascending and descending between earth and the sacred location of 
> Bethel.  I am perhaps stating the obvious, but Psalm 29 and Psalm 82 direct 
> my interpretation toward viewing the sons of El as celestial in nature.

Since the "sons of God" may refer to God's people or to angels (which I
think would be expected on the basis of Gen 1:26, man is made in "Our"
image, i.e. not just God's, but the angels'), shouldn't the near context
determine the identification re. particular passages?

Again, I have given my reasons for seeing here an older tradition being 
incorporated into a new context.  Otherwise, you principle is sound.

>
>  God's people are called
> beney 'el xay, sons of the living God - the same verse has "the sons of
> Israel" perhaps providing the reason for the MT of Deut 32:8, the
> interpretation being that the sons of God are the sons of Jacob who went
> into Egypt, numbering 70, being also the number of nations listed in
> Genesis 10.
>
> Let me see if I follow your reasoning here.   70 people went down to 
> Egypt-->70 nations in the table of nations=the fixing of the 
> bounds//national inheritance//divisions of humanity of 32:8.  It this 
> correct?

That's one way of explaining the MT reading, and I think it also fits
for an original beney el/elohim for beney yisra'el, since the song also
tells us several times that the sons of God are the Israelites (once 70
in number).

I think this interpretation if problematic and far more difficult to go with 
over my own.
>
>   The tradition behind the MT (if not the original reading)
> evidently wanted to avoid the interpretation "angels of God" (LXX).
>
> I strongly suspect that the MT is reacting to the intepretation that I am 
> offering, that Yahweh is here a son of El (Elyon).
>
> What do you think?
>
>

I think a text with such a teaching never would have made it into the
canon.

Well, looks like it just might have in spite of the MT tradition to change it.

Yours,

John



.
> ** Original Subject: Re: The Sons of El
> ** Original Sender: John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>
> ** Original Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:31:03 +0200
> **---------

> 


Lloyd Barre

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