Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

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