Alternative Explanations/Counterarguments.
An alternative explanation for the text-critical variants is to assume that the
MT preserves the original reading and the other readings are the result of an
accidental textual corruption. One would then have to assume that ישראל was
later misread or corrupted to אלהים, but this is not very likely, since the words
are very dissimilar. Another alternative is to assume an intentional change but
this is even more unlikely, because it implies that a later scribe intentionally
inserted polytheistic conceptions in a rather late stage. Such an editorial intervention would go against the typical
direction to harmonize the Hebrew Bible toward monolatric or early monotheistic
conceptions.
Jan Joosten proposed an
alternative theory (Jan Joosten, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8*,” VT
57 [2007]: 548-55). He argues that the MT reading בני ישראל makes no sense in
this context, so it is unlikely that the text was intentionally corrected to
read in this way. Moreover, the Greek readings would be separate and secondary
developments that do not preserve the original text. In his view the original text
read בני שר אל, “sons of Bull El,” which by dittography was later confused or intentionally
made to have read בני ישראל. As a reference to Bull El is offensive, it would have
created various attempts to avoid it, such as the readings in the Greek
manuscripts. It is certainly true that בני שר אל and בני ישראל could easily be
confused, as there is only one latter of difference, and a later scribe could
also be tempted to add the letter י to avoid the offense. However, his
suggestion finds no textual support and is thus purely conjectural. Although
the Ugaritic texts are familiar with an equivalent term, the Hebrew Bible never
refers to שור אל, “Bull El.” Joosten’s interpretation also implies a more complicated
textual development, as the LXX and 4Q37 would have to be explained as
independent secondary developments. Joosten suggests that the original text was
edited so that the word שר was dropped out of בני שר אל, which would have
resulted in בני אל. This was even further changed to בני אלוהים in the
tradition behind 4Q37. The Old Greek would have been translated from a similar tradition
that read בני אלהים or בני אל. Although Joosten’s suggestion is intriguing, one
should not follow a purely conjectural reconstruction if a satisfactory
interpretation based on extant manuscripts can be offered. One should also note
that his theory implies a more complicated development. For these reasons, it
is more likely that the Old Greek/4Q37 reading is more original than the MT. (Richard
Müller and Juha Pakkala, Editorial Techniques in the Hebrew Bible: Toward a
Refined Criticism [Resources for Biblical Study 97; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL
Press, 2022], 406-7)
