Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

This post from Lloyd Barre came to my private mailbox.  We're still 
figuring out why, but with his permission, I am posting it to the list.  
My reply will follow later.
Dave Washburn

From:                   Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>
To:                     "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Subject:                re: Re: The Sons of El
Date sent:              19 Jan 99 16:56:04 -0800

Dave,

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

>Lloyd Barre wrote:

> Dear List Members,
> 
> I am interested in your opinions on Deut 32:7-9.  I have provided a summary 
> of my view on it to get things going.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Lloyd Barre
> 
> 
> Think back to the older days,
> think over the years, down the ages.
> Ask of your father, let him teach you;
> of your elders, let them enlighten you:
> 
> When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance,
> when he divided the sons of men,
> he fixed their bounds according to the number of the sons of El, 
> Yahweh's portion is his people,
> Jacob his inheritance.
> 
> 
> The introduction begins with the statement that a student may
> learn of an ancient event, the knowledge of which first came to
> his grandfather's generation.  The event was an executive decision
> by El who assigned his divine "sons" to rule over various peoples.
>  Here Yahweh is made the preeminent "son of El" who has been
> assigned the people of Jacob.  This  theological scheme is
> illustrated in the following diagram: 
> 
>                                         El
>                                       |
>                                 Sons of  El
>                                       |
> Chemosh       Dagon          Baal    Yahweh   Milcom       Hadad        Qos
>         |                     |                 |              |            
>   |                   |              |
>    Moab           Philistia       Canaan     Jacob    Ammon        Aram     
>  Edom

Please note that I will be pasting parts of several other posts into 
this.  I will do my best to give proper attribution.

I see several unproven assumptions in this.  The first is the 
assumption that `elyon == El.  This has not been shown, and in 
fact based on usage in the HB it cannot be shown with any 
certainty.

First, the interpretive enterprise is by it nature inductive, begetting of 
probability and never ce
rtainty.  It always remains a possibility that new data will arise that will 
affect or even overthr
ow a conclusion.  Thus, the question is whether is given interpretation is 
judged to be the most pr
obable, not whether it is certain or "proven."

As I mention in another post, there is every reason to adopt the LXX/DSS over 
against the MT readin
g on text-critical grounds.  It is the more difficult reading, and the one 
that explains how the MT
 arose.

  We have `elyon standing alone, in compound with El, in 
compound with Elohim, in compound with YHWH and in parallel 
with YHWH.  So the structure above is built on assumption and 
overly simplistic, at best.

We are not finally interested in the semantic range of Elyon but with it 
meaning in this particular
 context.   Since I accept the LXX reading, the immediate context relates 
Elyon to (bene) El.  Also
, Elyon is used in Gen 14:20 with El, lending credence and confirmation to 
the contextual argument.
  I do not think it is wise to assume that I have stated all my reasons for 
my interpretation in on
 fell swoop.  Perhaps you were wrong to assume my assumptions and  the 
simplistic nature of my inte
rpretingDave.  It just might put me in the mood to bash evangelical 
dogmaticism in biblical interpr
etation, and do not really wish to do that.  Nor does our chairman.


Another assumption is the reading "sons of El."  As Irene Riegner 
pointed out, 

--
The LXX says "according to the
number of angels of god," "aggelwn theos."  BHS notes that an Old 
Latin
version, the Syrohexaplaris also used this and that these versions
"correct" what the editors of BHS assumed was the original, "sons 
of El
[  )l  ]," or sons of Elim  [  )lym  ].  If "sons of El" or "sons of the
gods" is correct, then "he fixed their bounds according to the 
number of
sons of El / gods" would certainly make sense.  Before accepting 
this
emendation, I would need to know the reason behind the 
recommendationon
--

I quite agree; the emendation appears to be made on slim grounds 
indeed.

I disagree with both "emendation," "slim grounds," and especially "indeed."  
Are you familiar with 
the principles of textual criticism?  Good.  We have hertextualal variants.  
You are invited to mak
e a decision based on those principles.

  John Ronning offers this explanation:

--
As for the "sons of El/Elohim," the same song/poem says that God 
"begot"
Israel (v. 18).  Deut 14:1 says "You are the sons of Yhwh your 
God, you
shall not cut yourselves . . ."  Hos 1:10/2:1  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.  The tradition behind the MT (if not the original reading)
evidently wanted to avoid the interpretation "angels of God" (LXX).
--

I find this unconvincing.

Me too.  Patentlconvolutedd.

  The commentary of Keil and Delitzsch 
(vol. 1 p. 470) says:

--
The Septuagint rendering, "according to the number of the angels 
of God," is of no critical value,--in fact, is nothing more than an 
arbitrary interpretation founded upon the later Jewish notion of 
guardian angels of the different nations (sir xvii. 14), which probably 
originated in a misunderstanding of chap. iv. 19, as compared with 
Dan. x. 13, 20, 21, and xii. 1.

Keil and Delitzsch?  I wonder if they have any strong 
theologicalpredispositionss.  Are they not re
flecting the same theological difficulties that gave rise to the MT reading?  
The LXX presuppose an
d the DSS show that the underlying text was something like bene elim or bene 
elohim.  I mentioned P
s 29 and Ps 82 to support the view that text is not dealing with mala'kim 
(subordinate divine messe
ngers) but with being high up in El's celestial family, his sons, as we find 
in Canaanite mythology
.  Yahweh is here give rule over a national group--Jacob and enjoys the 
status of other high gods s
ubordinate only to El Elyon, the highest god, indeed the creator god 
according to Gen 14:20.

If this is correct, the reading "children of Israel" is much to be 
preferred and the question of the "Sons of El" becomes moot.

How can the nations be divided according to the number of sons of Israel?  
Can you offer a more pro
bable interpretation than I have.  What does that mean?
  A 
more pertinent question would be to address the context: is this 
really talking about a prehistoric event when El or `Elyon divided up 
the peoples, or does the following context suggest that what is 
being described is the way YHWH separated Jacob/Israel out from 
among the nations to be His specially chosen?

I am going with the former as being the more probable interpretation for the 
reasons given above.  
You wish to argue that this text identifies Yahweh and Elyon, that the MT is 
the superior reading, 
then you now have some arguments to meet as well as a need to build a 
positive case for your rival 
interpretations.

I have no interest in taking an aggressive posture here.  But if you are 
inclined to characterize my thinking as uncritical or simplistic, I would be 
inclined to demonstrate otherwise with some force.  I do not wish to do that. 
 A congenial tone is preferable, don't you think?

Thank you,

Lloyd