Elyon, Bull El, and Yahweh: Another Look at Deuteronomy 32:8-9

Most scholars agree that the masoretic text of Deuteronomy 32:8 reflects a theological revision of a more original text reflected in 4QDeut^j and the Septuagint. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5 and the Oxford Hebrew Bible sample edition concur on this point, but differ on details. Neither considers the possibility that the revision encompassed the first word of 32:9. In this post, I adopt a text-critical proposal advanced by Jan Joosten that restores a reference to “Bull El” in Deut 32:8. The million-dollar question then is: how do Elyon, Bull El, and Yahweh relate to one another in the theology of the original – or more original poem – per Joosten’s reconstruction? The hypothesis Joosten develops sees Yahweh as a rogue desert God, not one of Bull El’s sons at all, and not identifiable with Elyon either.

The apparatuses do not post well. Here is the post as a pdf.

First of all, a look at the textual data. The impatient reader is invited to go to the end of the post for text and translation of MT and pre-MT Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

 The apparatus to Deut 32:8-9 in the OHB sampler reads:
 

32:8 אֵל ] Q4QDt^j (אלוהים) G (θεοῦ) יִשְׂרָאֵל  M SP (theol) § ║ 9 כי M SP ] וכי* G (καὶ ἐγενήθη) (+ conj) ║ fin ] + ישראל SP G (’Ισραήλ) (explic) 

 The apparatus to Deut 32:8-9 in BHQ 5 reads:
 

32:8 בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ Smr α' θ' σ' V S (T^J) T^ONF (em scr) │ בני אלוהים  Q4QDeut^j G │ ἀγγέλων θεοῦ G^Mss (exeg) ║ prefבְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים   Q4QDeut^j G   • 9 כִּי Smr V S T │ καὶ ἐγενήθη G  • נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃  Q4QDeut^q V S T │ נחלתו ישראל Smr G • 

 BHQ correctly cites 4QDeut^q V S T in support of MT at the end of 32:8.

 OHB and BHQ come to slightly different conclusions with respect to 32:8. Crawford’s reconstruction traces the evolution of the passage step-by-step:

 First, the G reading, υἱῶν θεοῦ, may be retroverted as either בני אל or בני אל(ו)הים Q4QDeut^j. If the former is chosen, then it is easy to suppose that the Vorlage of M SP, wishing to change a polytheistic text to monotheistic orthodoxy, inserted the consonants ישר before אל, thus creating the reading בני ישראל. Finally, 4QDeut^j’s אלוהים is simply a scribal change, employing the more common term for “God.”

 It is doubtful, however, that בני אלהים  is an example of assimilation to the usual. The phrase only occurs once elsewhere (Job 38:7). More common: בני האלהים (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1) and בני אלים (Ps 29:1; 89:7).

Jan Joosten has recently offered an alternative, and in my view persuasive, reconstruction.[1] I suggest the following, not as a criticism of either BHQ or OHB, except insofar as they fail to cite all the relevant textual data, but as a way of reopening the question:

בני שר אל ויהי*  ]  G  *בני אל ויהי (ἀγγέλων θεοῦ καὶ ἐγενήθη) G^{848 106c} (υἱῶν θεοῦ καὶ ἐγενήθη) ׁ(theol) 4QDt^j ([lacuna]בני אלוהים ) (crrp of ויהי toוהים   )  M SP α' θ' σ' V S (T^J) T^ONF  בני ישראל כי (theol)

 On Joosten’s reconstruction, an original שֹׁר אֵל ‘Bull El’ was shortened in one stream of transmission, in keeping with later theological sensibilities, to mere אֵל. It is my proposal that καὶ ἐγενήθη G reflects ויהי by analogy with standard translation practice elsewhere, with the 4QDeut^j reading then seen to be the result of mechanical error. The כי attested in M SP V S T is then seen to be the second element in a revision whose other element in ישראל, likewise attested in M SP V S T. The theological revision is obtained with the smallest of changes. A translation of כי with “behold,” on the other hand, is a weak expedient. It is doubtful that כי ever had such a meaning; to invoke it here is an example of exegetical desperation.

The revised text reads thus: 

בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם         בְּהַפְרִידֹו בְּנֵי אָדָם

יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים           לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

כִּי חֵלֶק יהוה עַמֹּו         יַעֲקֹב חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתֹו

When the Most High gave nations their inheritance,

        when he divided humankind,

he set the bounds of the peoples

        according to the number of the children of Israel,

for the Lord’s portion is his people.

         Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.

 

The unrevised text would have read thus:
 

בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם          בְּהַפְרִידֹו בְּנֵי אָדָם

יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים            לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי שֹׁר־אֵל

וַיְהִי חֵלֶק יהוה עַמֹּו        יַעֲקֹב חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתֹו

When Elyon gave the nations an inheritance,

      when he divided humankind,

he set the bounds of the peoples

      according to the number of Bull El’s children,

and Yahweh’s portion was his people,

      Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.

Bibliography

Sidnie White Crawford, ed., Oxford Hebrew Bible Sample Edition [ = Deut 32:1-9] (link here); Jan Joosten, “A note on the text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,” VT 57 (2007) 548-555; Carmel McCarthy, ed., Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5. Deuteronomy (gen. ed. Adrian Schenker et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007).

---

[1] Jan Joosten, “A note on the text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,” VT 57 (2007) 548-555. Other recent treatments of note include: Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and The Sons of God,” BibSac 158 (2001) 51-74; Innocent Himbaza, “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes. Essai d’intrepretation et de datation,” Bibl 82 (2002) 527-548; W. Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness. Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 223-224.

Comments

[Mike Heiser]

This is very interesting, and I will surely read Jan's article. The reading depends on two assumptions: that G καὶ ἐγενήθη must be (or can only be) accounted for with an original ויהי occurring at the beginning of v.9, and the notion that אלוהים is simply a scribal change. They are of course interconnected. This is quite reasonable, though not certain, since the LXX translator could also have been confused by an initial כי and then just done the best he could, opting for καὶ ἐγενήθη. It's not like confusion-producing pragmatism never happens in LXX! In any event, I don't think a Bull El reading supports divine multiplicity in terms of Bull El and Yahweh being viewed as separate deities in the minds of the final redactors of the text (or even earlier). It seems few people bother to check vv 6-7 in regard to this issue (haven't read Jan's article yet to see if he does). We have in those verses a fusing of well-known El and Baal motifs (cf. Ugarit) with YHWH. YHWH and El are not cast as separate deities in vv.6-7, and neither are YHWH and Baal. THEY (El and Baal) are HIM (YHWH) in the eyes of who produced the text. Bull El would just be another El title. If we go with Mark Smith's argument that such a fusion occurred by the 8th century BCE, then YHWH and El are not separate deities in orthodox Yahwism when the text was put into final form (the "original" text in my view). I've discussed these two verses in an article not cited by John Hobbins in this post if anyone is interested - (Hiphil Journal - http://www.see-j.net/Default.aspx?tabid=77).
Readers will note that I disagree with Smith on several points (I think this intellectual fusion occurred much earlier as part of Israel's conception of divine council structures).

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Mike, for commenting here. Unforgivably, I had forgotten about your Hiphil article.

Joosten, you will be happy to know, suggests a pre-8th cent BCE date for the unrevised form of Haazinu. Pre-8th cent BCE dates for parts of the Hebrew Bible are unfashionable these days, but I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum begins swinging back again, with Deut 32, Exod 15, Judg 5 and a few other examples of poetry, together with their current linguistic and ideological profile (minus spotty updates), redated centuries earlier.

You are certainly right to point out that the text-critical reconstruction proposed above is far from proven. It remains at best the most plausible among a set of alternatives.

[B. McAtee, the McAtee Bee]

I posted some information on your subject and it came back "this information cannot be accepted". What good is your thing if it wont accept information?

[JohnFH]

Hello, McAfee. I don't follow you. If a comment of yours didn't go through, email me with it at jfhobbins at gmail dot com.