John Kesler

And this passage is by no means the only passage which takes for granted the existence of other gods.


Look at how the RSV was changed by the NRSV translators (my emphasis):

Adding the word "own" to verse 9 makes "Most High" and "the LORD" (Yahweh) the same deity, and changing the tense from present to past ("is" becomes "was") puts the allotment of Yahweh to Israel at a time prior to the allotment of land to the other gods, showing that the same god who did the alloting intended all along to keep Israel for himself.

rob117

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 certainly takes for granted the existence of other gods; however, it does not necessarily follow that Yahweh and El are treated as separate deities here. Even without altering the translation and adding words like "own" where they don't belong, it need not necessarily imply that they are here treated as different deities:

If, as semiopen says, "ki" means "because," the passage could just as easily be interpreted as saying "Yahweh(=El Elyon) gave the other nations to the other gods so that he could keep Israel as his people.

This seems to be the most natural explanation when we look at the passage in its wider context (New International Version):

The song as a whole is a condemnation of Israel worshiping foreign gods and "idols":

I don't deny that Yahweh and El were originally separate gods, I just don't think we can find evidence of it in this particular passage.

semiopen

The link provided by Loomis has the author making the point that if EL and Yahweh are different in these passages, how can the passages be dated after the exile?

The same logic certainly applies to Samuel and part of Kings discussed in the "Hebrew" inscription deciphered link.

This argument seems strong and simple to me, but I'd hesitate to use it to support a maximalist structure where these guys are actually the same. Similarly, it seems too much could be read into the Hebrew Ostraca, where, assuming it is Hebrew, it certainly does not prove that a local scribe wrote it, much less the existence of a unified kingdom.

The bible often uses "eykev" for because; I'm not sure if that word is used anymore. "Ki" as I mentioned is usually translated as for, certainly for that passage. If I could speak Hebrew better and went to Israel, I'm sure people would think I was a time traveler.

Loomis

I disagree. I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the author thought of El and Yahweh as separate deities. I admit that the text allows for different interpretations – in fact we could have a field day with it. For example we could also argue that El, Elyon, and Yahweh are three different gods. But the only way we are going to move forward is to try to put it the context that the author intended.

Imho I think verse 7 is a very revealing indicator of what the author was thinking.
The author asks the reader to remember the days of old – to remember an older tradition.

Right?

Well (if you agree), then what tradition is the author talking about?

Fathom to guess? :constern01:

Roland

8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel. [c]

9 For the LORD's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.

If "all mankind" is being divided and boundaries between them set, then what does doing it "according to the number of the sons of Israel" mean? Doing it according to the number of the sons of El makes perfect sense - each lesser god gets his own set of people to rule over, i.e., Yahweh gets Israel - but the way it's written here doesn't seem to convey any coherent meaning. What do the sons of Israel have to do with the divisions and boundaries of "all mankind"? Is it talking about the 12 tribes of Israel? And, if so, why say "all mankind"?

show_no_mercy

It doesn't make sense because "sons of Israel" isn't original to the text . It was "improved" by someone trying to erase the polytheism in the Hebrew bible.

Loomis

Which paradigm best explains Psalm 89:6-7?

1. That Yahweh was the father of the sons of God?
   
   Or,
   
   
2. That Yahweh and the father of the sons of God were separate deities?

If it was understood that Yahweh was the father of the sons of God then what motivated the comparison?

Why would the author feel compelled to emphasize the power relationship between the ‘God’ and his sons?

Do you see what I mean?

----------------------------------

Bonus points if you can explain why the ‘majesty of the sea’ is personified in verse 9.

Loomis

Nothing.

It never said 'sons of Israel' - until about 900-1000 C.E.

Get over it.

:vomit:

Loomis

Okay. Maybe you’re right.

Get a load of Sirach 17:17
Note that this passage suffers from the same ambiguity as Deut 32:7-9. The ‘divider of the nations’ could be the Lord, or it could be another divinity. (Maybe the author didn’t know either – maybe he was just barrowing mindlessly from Deut 32.) But notice that it agrees with Heiser in that Israel was some sort of exception - perhaps not one of the first 70 nations - prehaps reserved for the Lord.

Loomis

No. It’s talking about the seventy nations listed in Genesis 10.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

In Canaanite mythology El fathered seventy sons with the goddess Asherah.

Presumably the 70 sons of El (from Canaanite mythology) correspond to the 70 nations in Genesis 10.

-------------------------------

Note too that Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 say that 70 members of Jacob's family went down to Egypt in the days of Joseph.