Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: The Sons of El

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: The Sons of El
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:07:51 -0500 (EST)



For the sake of argument, let us grant Lloyd's hypothesis that Deut.
32:8-9 is an already ancient fragment which was incorporated by the
early Hebrew writer (Moses?) into his poem. Thus this fragment goes
back to very ancient times, perhaps to Israel's time in Egypt or
before. What does that tell us? Only historical information about the
faith of the ancestors of Israel; nothing I think to threaten anyone's
faith today.

Then, I suppose, this fragment was (for the sake of argument)
incorporated into a poem similar to what we now have as the MT in
early times - pre-monarchy? early monarchy? (What do the scholars
say?) (Or is Lloyd trying to say that these verses were added to the
poem after most of it was composed?) By this time the faith of the
Israelites was more near to its classical form, in which there was no
longer a distinction made between YHWH and El. Lloyd might call the
change "religious syncretism", but people of faith today might say
that Israelite religion became more nearly perfect as a result of
God's self-revelation at Sinai etc.

If Lloyd is giving this as a reconstruction, I do not see in what way
"this interpretation is theologically objectionable to certain schools
of religious thought", except perhaps exceptionally conservative ones.
The problem comes when he makes statements like "The "El" of Israel
was not Yahweh... El of Israel is a distinct god." Would you, Lloyd,
qualify these statements with "according to the theology of the
authors of Deut. 32:8-9 and of certain ancient legends", or are you
putting this forward as your own theology? Naturally such a belief is
"theologically objectionable" to any monotheist today, although I
would hope that our discussions on this list take a form which does
not exclude polytheists any more than atheists.

For I can only agree with Lloyd that theological considerations
"should not play a part in the objective and unbiased evaluation of
any given interpretation"; but I hope we will be biased in neither
direction, neither for nor against traditional religious
interpretations. Please let's keep well away from the type of argument
from shock horror value which I associate with the press and
sensationalist books: "Read the true facts which a conspiracy of
priests and theologians has been trying to cover up for centuries!!
Only $...!!!" ;-)

Peter Kirk







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page