Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Even with the corrected reading I still just don't see it. Such an
understanding would go against the grain of the teaching of the Torah in its
entirety. And even if we forget that minor hurdle the understanding proposed
just simply isn't there.

James Christian

2010/2/26 George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>

> The textual evidence is ambiguous for the final two words in 32.8. MT has
> בני ישראל (‘sons of Israel’) while 4Q37 at Qumran reads בני אלוהים (‘sons of
> God’ or ‘sons of gods’). The LXX reads αγγελων θεου (‘angels of God’), which
> is often the way it translates ‘sons of God’. So there is good textual
> evidence that the MT is perhaps itself an interpolation rather than the
> original reading.
>
> If that is the case and 4Q37 represents something closer to the original,
> then one can see why it is proposed that the poem originally saw Yahweh as
> one of the sons of El. Whether it’s a correct interpretation of the verse or
> not is a different matter, but it’s not an uncommon understanding.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>