On Deut 32:8
If we look at v. 8 in isolation, the change
in the Masoretic text may be explained either as:
1. Deliberate change due to theological
concerns; or
2. A scribal emendation caused by the scribe’s
Vorlage being corrupt, with only the
letters בני אל (“children of El”) being preserved, making the scribe guess that אל are the last two letters of ישׂראל (“Israel”) rather than the first two of אלוהים (“god(s)”);
or
3. Following Joosten’s suggestion, בני שר אל, i.e., “the sons of the Bull El,” as a better reading, which, in
the process of copying, by mistake, underwent dittography of the yod and a regrouping of the words, thus
creating the Masoretic reading (Jan Joosten, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy
xxxii 8,” Vetus Testamentum 57
[2007]:548-555).
The second explanation is the weakest one,
for if it were correct, why did the scribe fail to take into account that there
would not have been enough space for the missing letters between י and א?
The third explanation is certainly
attractive; it may mirror almost exactly another possible scribal mistake in Hos
8:6, with the emendation מי שר אל (“who is the bull El?”) for the
Masoretic מישראל (“from Israel”)-a similarity pointed
out by Joosten, with credits to Tur-Sinai (Joosten, “A Note on the Text”).
Joosten argues that in an independent development, the word שר might be omitted for theological reasons. While שׂ and שׁ may easily change into one
another, both being written ש, this theory would, however,
presuppose the less likely situation that אל was changed into אלוהים combined with a defective rather
than the common plene spelling of שור.
I believe that the first explanation, that of
a conscious change due to theological concerns, seems the best solution. A
change of בני אלוהים to בני אשראל not only substituted an unusual expression with one which is
common, but it also guarded against polytheistic interpretation (Contrast Paul
Winter, “Nochmals zu Deuteronomium 32 8,” Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 75 [1963]:218-223). Indeed, if בני אלוהים was the
original reading, the verse might be (mis-)understood to mean that Elyon, the
highest god, distributed humankind according to the number of (his?) divine
sons or gods, of which Yahweh was merely one, and one that was even subject to
Elyon . . . However, the reading בני אשראל ensured that Yahweh and Elyon were identified as one and the same
god, no other being mentioned in this verse.
This fear of polytheistic interpretations
also surfaced in v. 43 . . . and I suspect the changes in v. 8 and v. 43 were
done by the same scribe. We know from other passages that anti-polytheistic
changes occurred, not only when the Hebrew text was translated, but also within
the Hebrew text itself. Examples of these may include texts where proper names
containing the divine name Baal have been changed, e.g. 1 King 18:19.25; or
Judg 6:32 compared to 2 Sam 11:21; or 1 Chr 8:33 compared to 2 Sam 2:8; or 1
Chr 8:34 compared to 2 Sam 4:4; or 2 Sam 5:16 compared to 1 Chr 14:7. Examples of
a different category are those instances where there are traces of scribal
concern that אֱלֹהִים may be understood as a plural;
e.g. note variants for Neh 9:18; Exod 22:19. Anti-polytheistic concerns also
explain the changes made in the Samarian Pentateuch and the versions.
The number referred to in the verse deserves
a comment. If בני אלוהים is the better reading, what number is intended? Perhaps the
author did not have any particular number in mind, but merely meant to say that
each god has its own people, Israel being Yahweh’s? Ugaritic text speak of 70
sons of Athirat, the wife of El, and perhaps this is alluded to in the verse.
However, 70 is also the number of nations or peoples both in Deut 10:22 and,
more or less, in Gen 1-11, and could support the translation “children of God”
over against “children of gods.” Whether it refers to Athirat’s 70 sons, or to
the nations in Deut 10:22; Gen 10-11, the change to בני אשראל would also, perhaps, create a
concern for the scribe to preserve the number. McCarthy and Barthélemy argue
that, as a consequence of the changes in Deut 32:8, the Masoretic text
underwent changes also in Gen 46:21.22.27; Exod 1:5, and has a further impact
of Jubilees 44:33-34—all to reach the number 70, as demanded by Deut 32:8
(McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim,
211-214; Barthélemy, “Les tiqquné sopherim.”).
In conclusion, the best reading is בְּנֵי אֱלוֹהִם
(“children of God/gods”). There is almost unanimous agreement among scholars
that this is the best reading with Stevens as an exception (Stevens, “Does
Deuteronomy 32:8 Refer”). (Tina Dykesteen Nilsen, The Origins of Deuteronomy 32: Intertextuality, Memory, Identity [New
York: Peter Lang, 2018], 26-27)
On Deut 32:43
In line 2, the Septuagint supports the Qumran
text, but with an addition, resulting in the reading “all children of God”
instead of “all gods.” In Ode 2, in the Septuagint, the same line reads παντες οι
αγγελοι θεου (“all angels of God”), as it does
in line 4 of Deut 32:43, and it is thus quoted in Heb 1:6. Interestingly, Doe 2
has παντες υιοι θεου
(“all children of God”) and παντες υιοι θεου (“all children of God”) have been
interchanged in Ode 2 as compared to Deut 32:43 in the Septuagint. Regardless
of this curious phenomenon taking place in Ode 2 and Deut 32:43, Skehan and
Ulrich point out that αγγελοι θεου (“angels of God”) and υιοι θεου (“children of God”) are used interchangeably
in the Septuagint manuscripts and the daughter versions (Skehan and Ulrich, “4QDeutq,”
141). Hence, they suggest that αγγελοι θεου may be the best reading for the Septuagint
in line 2 of v. 43, as it is more frequently used to translate בני אלוהים (“children
of God”), so that υιοι θεου is the result of a younger revision. Indeed, we saw in v. 8 that
the Septuagint translates בני אלוהים (“children of God”) as αγγελων θεου (“of angels of God”), as it is in Job 1:6;
2:1; 38:7; cf. Dan 3:25. However, this or equivalent phrases are, in fact,
translated as υιοι θεου in Gen 6:2.4;
Pss 28:1 (29:1); 88:7 (89:7); cf. Ps 8:6; and so the case is not clear-cut.
This gives rise to several possible alternatives:
1. The oldest reading that included this line
read כל אלהים (“all gods”) as in the Qumran text; so this was misread by the
Septuagint translator as בני אלוהים (“children of God”), thus giving rise to the translation αγγελοι θεου (“angels of God”) or υιοι θεου (“children of God”). While a
badly written כ could be misunderstood as a ב, it is more difficult, even if not impossible, to see how this
could take place with ל and ני. Neither does it explain the presence of the word παντες (“all”) which surely translates כל (“all”).
2. The Septuagint’s Vorlage read בני אלוהים (“children of God”), and I older than כל אלהים (“all gods”), found at Qumran.
Again, a badly written ב could be misunderstood as a כ, but it is more difficult, even if not impossible, to see how
this could take place with ל and ני. Also, it does not explain why παντες (“all”) is found in the
Septuagint.
3. The Septuagint’s Vorlage read כל בני אלהים (“all the children of God”), and
is the oldest reading. The Qumran reading was created due to haplography, the
scribe’s eye skipping from כל to אלהים due to the similarity of the letters כ and ב.
4. An original כל אלהים (“all gods”) has been
consciously expanded for theological reasons to παντες υιοι θεου (“all children of God”) or πανες
αγγελοι θεου (“all angels of God”). Al almost
identical line in Ps 97:7, which clearly reads כל אלהים (“all gods”) has been translated
by the Septuagint (Ps 96:7) as παντες οι αγγελοι αυτου (“all the angels of God”).
The arguments in favor of the reading כל אלהים (“all gods”) seem well founded;
the same anti-polytheistic scribal corrections as that taking place in v. 8 may
also explain why line 2 in the Qumran text has been eliminated from the
Masoretic text. (Ibid., 45-46)
On Yahweh (and others) being “Rock”
Metaphor 1:
YAHWEH (and the GODS) is a ROCK (Deut 32:4.15.18.30.31.37)
ROCK is a frequently used vehicle for
metaphors on Deut 32:1-43, so much so that it is sometimes called a Leitmotif without which one would not
understand the message of Give Ear. The tenor, however, varies throughout the
poem; normally ROCK refers to YAHWH (vv. 4.15.18.30), but it can also refers to
foreign GODS (v. 37), or even to both within the same clause (v. 31). This
reflects the general tendency of the Hebrew Bible to use ROCK as a vehicle
primarily for YAHWH only, but sometimes for other GODS.
This metaphor’s background is often traced to
inspiration from the natural landscape of Palestine from Zion as a rock, and/or
from Ugaritic or Assyrian religion. Based on a rock’s natural characteristics,
as well as the lexemes occurring together with or in parallelism with the
metaphor in the Hebrew texts, scholars almost unanimously agree that the common
ground is that of stability, strength and salvation/protection. However, while
this is often correct, there are some exceptions. Deuteronomy 32 itself exemplifies
this. Both v. 15 and v. 37 have protection as common ground, but in the latter
verse, it is spoken with irony and refers to foreign GODS. V. 4, which
introduces ROCK for the first time in the poem, ties it to moral uprightness.
In v. 18, however, the ROCK is the one who gives birth. In vv. 30-31, where the
tenor varies between YAHWEH and foreign GODS, no characteristics are specified.
According to Knowles, the ROCK image of the poem “becomes an instrument of
religious polemic” that distinguishes the faithful ROCK from the unfaithful
OFFSPRING, and the true ROCK from the false ones to which the people have
turned.
In 1 Sam 2:2 ROCK is used, as least
indirectly, as a vehicle for GODS in general, at the same time that Yahweh is
unique. Psalm 92:16 has, as Deut 32:4, moral uprightness as common ground; like
Give Ear, this psalm also calls God “Elyon,” as does Ps 78:35, which explicitly
links God the rock to Elyon, though with redemption as common ground.
However, three texts use the ROCK-image in
ways even more similar to those of Give Ear: Ps 18:32 (=2 Sam 22:32); Isa 44:8;
51:1. Psalm 18:31-32, like 1 Sam 2:2, speaks of ROCK indirectly as vehicle for
GODS in general, but the context shows that YAHWEH is the only true tenor of ROCK.
Like Give Ear, also Ps 18:31-32 calls Yahweh both “El” and “Eloah,” and v. 31
speaks of the rockiness in terms of God’s “perfect way” with lexemes identical
to Deut 32:4. In v. 32 there is a change of the metaphor’s common grounds: Isa
44:8. Also this passage is spoken in the context of Yahweh’s uniqueness vis a vis the foreign gods. Where ROCK indirectly
refers to any GOD, even though YAHWEH in fact is the only ROCK. The context for
YAHWEH as a unique ROCK in both Give Ear and Isa 44:8 is that of his
incomparability in delivering his people in spite of its failures. Furthermore,
also Isa 44:8 calls God “Eloah” (the only time in the entire Book of Isaiah
that this epithet is used), and the very rare term “Jeshurun” is used in the
context in both Give Ear and in Isa 44 (the only other occurrence of “Jeshurun”
is Deut 33:15, which is also spoken in a context of Yahweh’s supremacy over
other gods, though that poem does not use the ROCK-metaphor). In addition, both
Isa 44:8 and Deut 32:31 speaks about judges or witnesses.
The birthing ROCK in Deut 32:18 is a unique
image with no parallels; however, as Knowles rightly points out, the idea is
close to what we find in the combination of YAHWEH as PARENT and as ROCK in Ps
89:27. However, in Ps 89:27, YWHEH as PARENT and as ROCK are mentioned in a series
where epithets are not directly linked to each other. Apart from Deut 32:18,
there is only one other text that makes the connection between ROCK and birth
explicit, namely Isa 51:1-2. However, the tenor of the ROCK in this passage is
not YAHWEH, but rather as the parallelism shows, ABRAHAM AND SARAH.
Nonetheless, Isa 51:1-2 shows the remarkable mixture of ROCK-imager with birth
and parenthood, as well as righteousness. (Ibid., 76-77, capitalisation in
original. “Give Ear” is the author’s name for the entirety of Deuteronomy
chapter 32).