Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Lloyd Barre wrote:

> 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 certainty.  It always remains a
> possibility that new data will arise that will affect or even
> overthrow a conclusion.  Thus, the question is whether is given
> interpretation is judged to be the most probable, not whether it
> is certain or "proven." 

I will grant that my use of the word "unproven" was a poor choice of 
words.  "Undemonstrated" would have been a better choice.  But 
the fact remains that there are still several assumptions made in 
the original post that have not been shown to have any basis in the 
text.

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

Apparently I didn't get that post, but in any case, it can easily be 
argued that the MT reading is considerably more difficult, and the 
scenario set forth by Keil and Delitzsch provides a reasonable 
explanation of how the LXX reading arose.  See below on both 
points.

>   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 interpretingDave. 
> It just might put me in the mood to bash evangelical dogmaticism
> in biblical interpretation, and do not really wish to do that. 
> Nor does our chairman. 

The format of this post is really confusing.  If it will do it, could you 
please set your mailer to indent quoted material?  The first 
paragraph above is me, the second is Lloyd.  For the sake of 
clarity (at the expense of bandwidth, for which I apologize in 
advance) I'm going to copy Lloyd's paragraph and respond to it in 
parts.

> We are not finally interested in the semantic range of Elyon but
> with it meaning in this particular context.   

I'm not sure what "finally" has to do with it, but how do we go about 
interpreting the meaning of Elyon in this particular context without 
any reference to the word's semantic range?  The only way to 
determine a word's possible range of meaning in a given context is 
to examine its semantic range in as many contexts as we can.  A 
good introduction to this approach is Moises Silva, "Biblical Words 
and their Meaning" published by Zondervan.  We can't just pick and 
choose those examples of usage that are conducive to our 
presuppositions, we have to look at all of them.

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.  

But what do you do with the example of YHWH Elyon in Ps. 47:3 
(Heb) as well as YHWH Elyon in Ps 7:18 (Heb) which puts the 
expression in parallel with the simple name YHWH?  Yes, Gen 
14:20 relates Elyon to El.  However, a number of passages relate 
Elyon to YHWH as well, suggesting that they are all the same 
entity.  

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 
interpretingDave. 
> It just might put me in the mood to bash evangelical dogmaticism
> in biblical interpretation, and do not really wish to do that. 
> Nor does our chairman. 

I don't know why you want to get personal like this.  If you will read 
my post, you will see that I pointed out several assumptions that 
had not been defended.  It's rather obvious that you haven't stated 
everything underlying your interpretation, Lloyd.  I was asking you 
to do just that.  I find it puzzling that such a basic scholarly 
challenge sets you off so badly.

>> 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 make a decision based on those principles. 

You disagree with "emendation?"  Fascinating.  What would you 
call it?  The LXX reading AGGELWN QEOU can hardly be 
considered a "translation" of BNY )L, rather it would have to be an 
interpretation, and based on that interpretation the BHS editors 
suggest (note the abbreviation "prb recte" in the footnote) either 
BNY )L or BNY )LYM.  In other words, it's a suggested 
emendation.  You're free to disagree with "slim grounds" and the 
rest as well, but that doesn't make it so.

As for the swipe at my knowledge of textual criticism: I'll let that 
pass.

>   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.  

Of course they have, Lloyd.  News flash: so do I.  So do you.  So 
does everybody.  This looks suspiciously like a cop-out or a dodge. 
We all have theological presuppositions; that has nothing to do 
with it.  The question is, does the scenario they offer provide a 
reasonable explanation for the readings?  Answer: yes it does.  

> Are they not reflecting the same
> theological difficulties that gave rise to the MT reading?  

This is yet another assumption.  There need not have been 
"theological difficulties" if the MT reading is correct.  It seems 
much more likely that the LXX translator, faced with an odd 
expression like LMSPR BNY Y%R)L, would try to come up with 
something based on his own theological milieu to "make sense" 
out of the reading.

The
> LXX presuppose and the DSS show that the underlying text was
> something like bene elim or bene elohim.  

Hardly.  For one thing, the LXX could have presupposed a wide 
range of expressions, or (more likely) fell into the scenario I have 
outlined above.  The Qumran material is more problematic, but the 
mere fact that a reading may appear in the Qumran mss does not 
automatically make a reading original or preferred.  There seems to 
be some confusion about 4QDeut(q), I'm still waiting to review that 
one (many, many thanks to Kevin Barney who has offered to send 
the article to me); but 4QDeut(j) does read )LWHYM.  What's the 
significance of this?  Well, the vast majority of DSS support a more 
MT-style text; this is true of the documents from every cave except 
cave 4.  The biblical mss of Cave 4 are notably different: they 
depart frequently from the MT textform toward LXX, Sam and 
others.  Why should this be true of ONLY that one cave's 
contents?  Apart from Cave 4, LXX representation is slim to virtually 
nonexistent.  Why?  What explanation do you offer for this 
phenomenon?  Why were the documents in Cave 4 in such 
disarray?  The theory that they were on wooden shelves falls flat 
because no evidence of wood has been found either on the floor or 
in the proposed peg-holes in the walls.  Why does this one cave 
show evidence that its contents were just tossed in there, contents 
that differ so markedly from the materials in the other caves?  The 
evidence surrounding cave 4 makes textual dependence on its 
documents a tenuous prospect at best.

I mentioned Ps 29 and Ps
> 82 to support the view that text is not dealing with mala'kim
> (subordinate divine messengers) but with being high up in El's
> celestial family, his sons, as we find in Canaanite mythology. 

That post doesn't seem to have reached my mailbox.  Could you 
eitehr post it again or send it to me privately, or both?

> Yahweh is here give rule over a national group--Jacob and enjoys
> the status of other high gods subordinate only to El Elyon, the
> highest god, indeed the creator god according to Gen 14:20. 

I think you mean Gen 14:19, yes, it calls El Elyon the creator of 
heaven and earth, and it's only one piece of the puzzle.

> 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 probable interpretation than I have.
>  What does that mean? 

(Again, the first paragraph is me, the second is Lloyd)  Part of the 
problem, already mentioned by someone else in this thread, is that 
we're not sure what LMSPR means.  I do have trouble with the 
translation "according to"; for this sense we might have expected K-
rather than L-.  The combination LMSPR appears in 4 other 
passages: Josh 4:5 and 8, Ezek 4:5 (curious coincidence) and 2 
Chr 35:7.  The Josh passages seem to indicate correspondence, 
but the Ezekiel passage is more problematic: the NIV translates it 
"for 390 days," and the Chr passage seems to mean "as many as 
3,000"--in American idiom, we might say "he provided offerings to 
the tune of 3,000 cattle."  While the NIV does translate the Josh 
passages "according to," the connotation in context appears to 
mean "as a memorial of" of "to represent."  None of these helps us 
with the Deut passage.

Another possibility is that we're looking at one of the older usages 
of the preposition L- that we now know from Ugaritic, a partitive 
use: "He set up boundaries of nations (set apart) from the number 
of the children of Israel..."  Another problematic feature of this 
passage is the lack of a preposition before `amiym.  The only other 
place where the phrase GB[W]LT (MYM appears is Isaiah 10:13 
where it speaks of the king of Assyria and his destruction of 
nations.  Hence, LMSPR could also mean "He made national 
boundaries, as many nations as there are children of Israel" i.e. a 
large number.  If this is the case, it could indeed be looking back at 
the table of nations in Gen 10, as someone else suggested.  So 
the picture is by no means clear unless we assume that we know 
exactly what LMSPR, GBLT (MYM and a number of other 
expressions mean.  Fact is, we don't.  It looks to me as though 
"according to" is someone's best guess.

> 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. 

So the burden of proof is on me?  I don't think so; the reasons you 
give assume far too much, there is a perfectly good explanation 
(already given and properly attributed) for the LXX reading, the text 
does in fact equate YHWH and Elyon as do several other texts that 
you haven't dealt with, and I have yet to see a good reason to take 
this little snippet and divorce it from its context, a context that you 
have yet to deal with.  

> 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? 

First of all, I never said anything about uncritical.  Second, I said 
the approach was simplistic and built on some assumptions that 
have no demonstrated basis in the text.  If you feel you have to use 
force (whatever that may mean) that's your problem, not mine.  I'm 
perfectly happy with congenial tones, and I go out of my way to 
address viewpoints and statements about the text and avoid getting 
personal; I never mentioned your thinking, yet you seem hell-bent 
on taking any disagreement with your view as a personal attack.  I 
don't understand the attitude, because all we're trying to do here is 
have a scholarly dialogue about a view that you tossed on the 
table.  
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.