20 replies to this topic

[maklelan]

I'd like to put down my argument for reading Deut 32:8-9 as an indication that YHWH was originally conceived of as one of the ??? ?????. It seems establishing this will contribute to a number of different discussions going on right now, and in my Pundit forum thread it was rather quickly run over. I'd like to focus exclusively on this one text. I'm going to use only Deut 32:8-9 (in various attestations), and I'm going to request that respondents do the same. I'll not appeal to other texts that support my reading or to other scholarship. I want to see how this verse is best understood in and of itself. After we get that established we can worry about what the other texts say.

I'm going to start with a little textual criticism so we can the best idea of what the text originally said. Here it is as it appears in MT:

Quote

??????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????
  ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????????

When Elyon separated the nations / when he divided up the sons of man / he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of Israel

But the portion of YHWH is his people / Jacob is the territory of his inheritance

?
Now, as is widely known, scholars have long recognized ??? ????? is most likely not original. The Septuagint has "angels of God," which is how it usually translates the phrase ??? ?????. This led many scholars to conclude ??? ????? was original, which has been confirmed by 4QDeut<j> at Qumran (originally associated with 4QDeut<q>, but recently changed). The 4QDeut reading ends right at the lamed, which means we don't have the entire word for "God," and we don't have the beginning of Deut 32:9, which we will see is critical to understanding the text. This gives us the following for v. 8a:

Quote

????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????

When Elyon separated the nations / when he divided up the sons of man / he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God

Now, the ?? clause at the beginning of v. 9 is unusual. It cannot be causal. The only reading that makes any sense is an asseverative one ("Surely/Indeed/Certainly . . ."), but even that it peculiar given the clause immediately preceding it (according to the number of the sons of God). Again, the Septuagint gives us a different reading:

Quote

??? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????, ????????? ??????????? ????? ???????.

And his people Jacob became the Lord's portion / Israel, a measured part of his inheritance

??? ??????? comes from the Hebrew ????. This can either be "And it came to pass . . ." or it can be the main verb of the clause, which is how LXX reads it. Either way, it is subordinate to the previous clause rather than contrastive. (LXX also adds "Israel," which seems to be a harmonization with Ps 78:71.) The scribe who changed "God" to "Israel" either had a text that had already changed ???? to ?? or he did so himself. I'm inclined to think he did so himself.

Taking the evidence from the Septuagint against MT, I recommend the following reading for both verses:

Quote

????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????
???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????

When Elyon apportioned the nations / when he divided up the sons of man / he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God

And the portion of YHWH is his people / Jacob is the territory of his inheritance

Alternatively, we could render the second cola as follows:

Quote

And his people became the portion of YHWH / Jacob is the territory of his inheritance

This, however, requires playing with the word order, and would work better if the verse ended with Israel, as it does in LXX. The former reading is preferred, and the ???? phrase should be understood as a simple conjunction.

So now the text requires interpretation.

The nations are divided up according to the number of the sons of God. In this apportioning of the nations, YHWH received Israel. That YHWH's inheritance is linked to Elyon's apportioning of the nations is made clear by the lexical link at the beginning of v. 8 and the end of v. 9. The verb used to describe Elyon's apportioning is the hiphil infinitive construct of ??? (to inherit, possess), and the verb means "he caused to inherit/possess." The noun at the end of v. 9 is ????, which is simply the substantive of the same verb. It means "possession," "inheritance," or "allotment." The theme of both verses is identical. Elyon does the apportioning. YHWH receives a portion. On the surface, it seems clear that YHWH was among the Sons of God who received a division of the nations of the earth.

But if YHWH and Elyon are to be identified, then YHWH Elyon may just be saving a portion for himself. This conflicts with what the text says, however. The nations were divided up according to the number of the Sons of God, not the number of the Sons of God plus an extra. Nor does it say that somebody didn't receive a portion. Nor does it at all give the impression that YHWH is doing anything other than receiving a portion from someone else.

I contend that Deut 32:8-9 plainly distinguishes between Elyon and YHWH, and that YHWH is presented as one of the Sons of Elohim. I also contend that this understanding can only be mitigating by subjugating the interpretation of the text to the other scriptures from disparate historical and ideological layers. As I've argued elsewhere, this presupposes a univocal text and confines itself to the hermeneutic circle.

Is anyone willing to argue against the interpretation I offer above based on Deut 32:8-9 alone?

Edited by maklelan, 12 February 2010 - 02:58 PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

maklelan, on 12 February 2010 - 02:18 PM, said:

Is anyone willing to argue against the interpretation I offer above based on Deut 32:8-9 alone?

I'm not, but I am willing to watch with interest.

[volgadon]

Don't you mean ??????? ??????????? is likely not original?

[maklelan]

volgadon, on 12 February 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Don't you mean ??????? ??????????? is likely not original?

Oh, thanks for catching that.

[Ron Beron]

maklelan, on 12 February 2010 - 02:18 PM, said:

Is anyone willing to argue against the interpretation I offer above based on Deut 32:8-9 alone?

Not on your life, but I am willing to ask a question. It seems that this passage may hearken back to the more archaic assumptions prevalent within Ugartiic literature where the distinctions made are a bit more fine. Could this be the case here? Could El Elyon be conflated with YHWH in the same way that El is seen as distinct as Ba'al?

[Joseph Antley]

How do scholars rationalize this passage with the Deuteronomist's characteristic monotheism?

Is the Semitic myth of El giving a nation to each of the sons coherent with the Deuteronomist's theology?  If not, when this passage was incorporated into the text, did he/they understand the passage differently than as originally intended and as you argue here?

Edited by Joseph Antley, 12 February 2010 - 03:49 PM.

[maklelan]

Ron Beron, on 12 February 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

Not on your life, but I am willing to ask a question. It seems that this passage may hearken back to the more archaic assumptions prevalent within Ugartiic literature where the distinctions made are a bit more fine. Could this be the case here? Could El Elyon be conflated with YHWH in the same way that El is seen as distinct as Ba'al?

Elyon should be seen as the Israelite analogue to the Ugaritic El. Yahweh is the Israelite analogue to the Ugaritic Baal. Of course, many of the smaller details differ, but as far as procreator deity as father of storm deity goes, and other general questions of hierarchy and nature, they parallel each other.

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph Antley, on 12 February 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

How do scholars rationalize this passage with the Deuteronomist's characteristic monotheism?

Is the Semitic myth of El giving a nation to each of the sons coherent with the Deuteronomist's theology?  If not, when this passage was incorporated into the text, did he/they understand the passage differently than as originally intended and as you argue here?

Bump.

[maklelan]

Joseph Antley, on 12 February 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

How do scholars rationalize this passage with the Deuteronomist's characteristic monotheism?

Sorry, I didn't catch your post. I'm happy to respond to this one, but I'd like to keep the rest of the discussion focused only on Deut 32:8-9.

The Song of Moses is an archaic poem that was inserted into the structure of Deuteronomy, but is much older than it. Deut 32:8-9 represent a portion of that poem that is older than the rest of the poem, thus the v. 7 explains that it would be the elders reminding them of the facts presented in vv. 8-9. Deut 4:19 represents an interpretation of Deut 32:8-9 from a later time period. This is why the gods of the other nations are astral deities, which squares with Neo-Babylonian ideologies far more than Syro-Palestinian ones.

Joseph Antley, on 12 February 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

Is the Semitic myth of El giving a nation to each of the sons coherent with the Deuteronomist's theology?  If not, when this passage was incorporated into the text, did he/they understand the passage differently than as originally intended and as you argue here?

I believe when it was originally incorporated it was understood differently (thus Deut 4:19 puts YHWH at the top). The ?? may actually date to that original incorporation as an attempt to contrast v. 9 with the end of v. 8.

[maklelan]

Bump for Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I have seen this thread and do plan to respond. I have something else I'm working on, and I'd like to give your argument a little more thought before responding.

maklelan, on 14 February 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

Bump for Rob.

[maklelan]

Rob Bowman, on 14 February 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

Dan,

I have seen this thread and do plan to respond. I have something else I'm working on, and I'd like to give your argument a little more thought before responding.

Thanks Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You argue that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 clearly identifies YHWH as one of the sons of Elohim. Your argument here follows the Dead Sea Scroll text (4QDeut^j) that has “sons of Elohim” instead of “sons of Israel” (MT). Here is a translation of the passage, based on your textual reconstruction. (My comments regarding the translation and exegesis will follow.)

Quote

“When the Most High [Elyon] apportioned the nations,
When he divided the sons of man,
He fixed the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Elohim.
And it came to pass [wayehî] that YHWH’s portion is his people;
Jacob the measure of his apportionment.”

I agree that the 4QDeut text and the LXX reading “angels of God” together make a plausible case for “sons of Elohim” as the original reading. Still, I have to urge a caution here that we should accept this reading only with some tentativeness, given that we only have one incomplete manuscript with this particular reading. I am sure that if the situation was reversed and I were basing an argument on a reading preserved in a single manuscript, you would also suggest caution in building an argument on that basis.

Your argument here, “The nations were divided up according to the number of the Sons of God, not the number of the Sons of God plus an extra,” presupposes that the term “the nations” in this passage must include Israel. Not only is this presupposition exegetically unnecessary, a good case can be made against it. In Deuteronomy, as elsewhere in the OT, “the nations” (gôy?m) are typically the foreign peoples distinct from Israel, and thus do not include Israel (Deut. 4:27; 8:20; 12:2, 29; 17:14; 19:1; 26:19; 28:1; 29:24; 30:1). In the immediate context of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, “the nations” are those peoples who existed when the Most High “divided the sons of man.” This division of the nations probably refers to the division detailed in the Table of Nations, when “the nations were divided after the flood” (Gen. 10:32). Deuteronomy 32:8 uses the same “nations” (gôy?m) as well as the same verb for “divided” found in Genesis 10:32 (parad, also in Gen. 10:5). Thus, Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to an act involving nations that did not include Israel, which did not yet exist. After the flood, God had given over the nations to be ruled by other “gods,” but then he created a new people for himself, the people of Israel.

It is true, as you have pointed out, that the term “peoples” (‘ammîm) in the OT often includes or refers to Israel, and that the word “nations” (gôy?m) can include Israel even though in Deuteronomy it usually does not. What we can fairly derive from these observations is that these words must be interpreted in their contexts. Here’s what I understand is going on in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The text refers to the Most High apportioning the nations and the division of the sons of man, which appears to refer to the division of nations following the flood. The text then speaks of the Most High fixing “the boundaries of the peoples,” here using gôy?m as a synonym for ammîm. Thus, this usage of ammîm also refers to non-Israelite peoples existing after the flood and before the patriarchal era. These “peoples,” I argue, stand in contrast to YHWH’s “people” (‘ammô) in verse 9. This interpretation makes coherent, consistent sense of the uses of gôy?m and ‘ammîm/‘ammô in this passage, and it fits the typical usage of gôy?m elsewhere in Deuteronomy.

In our previous discussion, you also objected that my citation of Genesis 10 assumes “a univocal text.” Frankly, I don’t put any stock in this objection. All exegesis depends to some extent on understanding language through comparison with how that language is used elsewhere. The verbal connections between Genesis 10:5, 32 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 are sufficient to establish a plausible thematic connection between the two texts. Barring some exegetical datum in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to preclude this interpretation, I don’t see any reason to reject it. Furthermore, in reviewing the topic, I have realized that there is additional evidence confirming the correlation between Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Genesis, which I will discuss below.

Another exegetical matter you discuss is the beginning of verse 9. You argue that we should adopt an emendation of the Hebrew text (which has the conjunction kî, both in the MT and in 4QDeut), based on the LXX reading kai egenethe, “and it came to pass.” Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct and the original reading was something like wayehî, “and it came to pass.” This reading seems to fit my interpretation quite well, perhaps even better than the MT/DSS reading. The Most High allotted the nations among the sons of Elohim, and “it came to pass” that YHWH’s “allotment” was his people Jacob. The transition “and it came to pass” allows for a passage of time and is therefore consistent with my explanation that verse 8 refers to the division of nations in Genesis 10 while verse 9 refers to the later emergence of Jacob as a people belonging uniquely to YHWH.

Then there is the exegetical issue of the use of “inheritance” (nachalatô), which, as you pointed out, means inheritance or possession (we might also translate it “estate”). This word is the substantival form of the verb nachal used in verse 8 to express the Most High’s action with respect to the nations. There is a grammatical question here: does verse 8 mean that the Most High apportioned the nations to someone else (presumably “the sons of Elohim”) or that he gave the nations their apportionment, that is, their possession or inheritance? Your interpretation assumes, I think, that the former is correct, but I’m not convinced this is correct. Many Jewish and Christian translations follow the latter exegesis (e.g., ESV, JPS, KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, RSV, TNK); only the NRSV (“apportioned the nations”) allows for the former exegesis, but even it does not make this explicit. For the sake of argument, I have followed the NRSV on this point in my translation while noting the ambiguity.

Now, your interpretation understands the apportionment in verse 9 to be the same event as verse 8, which is understood as the Most High apportioning the nations to the sons of Elohim. On this basis, you conclude that verse 9 means that YHWH’s apportionment in that general apportioning of the nations was the people of Jacob. Grammatically, your interpretation seems to be a possible one, but by no means the only exegetically tenable interpretation. It is also possible to understand verse 9 to mean that sometime after the Most High apportioned the nations (whatever that means), YHWH took possession of his people Jacob as his apportionment. This way of reading the text does not require us to understand YHWH as one of the sons of Elohim.

I should point out that verse 8 is oddly worded, even in 4QDeut, if its point is that the Most High assigned each nation to a particular son of Elohim. Let me quote it again:

Quote

“When the Most High apportioned the nations,
When he divided the sons of man,
He fixed the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Elohim.”

That is an awkward or at least roundabout way of saying that he apportioned the nations by distributing each one of them to one of the sons of Elohim. I’m not saying it is an impossible interpretation, only that it is not an obvious way of saying it. The closest verbally parallel text in the Hebrew Bible is in Numbers 26, where YHWH commands Moses and Eleazar to take a census of “all the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Num. 26:2), which they do by tribes and by clans within those tribes (Num. 26:5-51). Then we read:

Quote

“YHWH spoke to Moses, ‘To these the land shall be divided [techaleq] for apportionment [benachalah] according to the number of names. To a large tribe you shall give a large apportionment [nachalatô], and to a small tribe you shall give a small apportionment [nachalatô]; every tribe shall be given its apportionment [nachalatô] according to its numbers. But the land shall be divided by lot; according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall be apportioned [yinhalû]. Their apportionment [nachalatô] shall be divided according to lot between the larger and the smaller’” (Num 26:52-56).

It’s possible to understand Deuteronomy 32:8 4QDeut in a roughly analogous way. The Most High divided the nations and fixed their boundaries in order to reflect in some way the distribution of the “sons of Elohim” among those peoples.

At this point, I would like to suggest another factor that adds strong additional support for my understanding that the apportionment and division of Deuteronomy 32:8 is related to the division of the nations in Genesis 10. It has to do with the expression “sons of Elohim” in Deuteronomy 32:8. This precise expression is actually quite rare in the Hebrew Bible. It shows up in the Book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and we’ve had some discussions on those passages in a separate thread. The only other place in which this expression occurs is Genesis 6:2, 4. Here is that passage:

Quote

“And it came to pass, when man began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. And YHWH said, My spirit shall not strive with man forever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when sons of Elohim came unto the daughters of man, and they bore children to them: the same were the mighty ones that were of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:1-4).

It is quite interesting that the expression “sons of Elohim” shows up in Genesis 6 in reference to the rise of the Nephilim, giants that Genesis says were on the earth both before the flood and afterward. Genesis 6 thus connects the sons of Elohim and their offspring, the “mighty ones” known as Nephilim, not only to the time before the flood but also to the time of the repopulation of the earth following the flood. In other words, we should see a connection between the incident described in Genesis 6:1-4 and the rise of the nations described in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. The first of the “mighty ones” that Genesis 6 says came afterward was Nimrod (Gen. 10:8-9). Nimrod’s kingdom began at Babylon in the land of Shinar, the precise location, according to Genesis, from which YHWH scattered the nations when they attempted to consolidate their power at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:2, 9). These references to Nimrod and Babylon in Genesis 10-11 confirm the connection between the “sons of Elohim” passage in Genesis 6 and the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Now let us return to Deuteronomy 32:8. It states that the Most High apportioned the nations by dividing the sons of man and fixing the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Elohim. We now see a cluster of three key expressions in this text relating to the narrative in Genesis 6-11: the “sons of Elohim,” the “nations,” and their “division.” I do not think this can be dismissed as accidental, especially in view of how rare the expression “sons of Elohim” is in the OT. Genesis 10 is, I believe, also the only other passage in the OT besides Deuteronomy 32 that speaks of a division of the nations. These clusters of unusual verbal and thematic links, in my opinion, put the association over the line of a possibility; it is highly probable.

In the Genesis narrative, immediately after the division of the nations in Genesis 10:1-11:9, the text introduces Abram as the figure whom YHWH chose from one of those nations (Gen. 11:10-32) to be the father of a new nation: “I will make you into a great nation” (Gen. 12:2a). This nation of which Abram was the patriarch would be the object of YHWH’s blessing and the agency through which YHWH would bring blessing to “all the peoples on earth” (Gen. 12:2b-3). There is, then, a narrative sequence of the division of the nations (Gen. 10-11) followed by the creation of a new nation that would be the object and agency of YHWH’s blessing (Gen. 12 onward). This two-step narrative sequence is consistent with what we find in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where the Most High divides the nations and then Jacob becomes YHWH’s people and possession.

Once we recognize the connection between Genesis 6-11 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, we can see that YHWH is not one of the “sons of Elohim” in the latter text, since those “sons of Elohim” are heavenly rebels causing mischief on the earth.

I contend, then, that the meaning of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is as follows. When God divided the nations, he did so in such a way that the rebellious “sons of Elohim” who corrupted the human race and threatened to do so again would be distributed or scattered widely along with those nations and peoples. Following this preservative action, what happened next was the rise of a new nation, the people of Jacob (Israel), the great nation that YHWH promised he would make from Abram. This special people are the people of YHWH, the people he possesses for himself. The text is not saying that God authorized each of his faithful sons to rule over a different nation on earth, and YHWH’s assigned nation happened to be Jacob. Rather, the text is saying that while the surrounding nations continued to be dominated by the rebellious “sons of Elohim,” Jacob had the tremendous privilege of being YHWH’s own people. This interpretation is to be preferred, for the following reasons considered together:

(1) It is consistent with the wording of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, viewed in and of itself.
(2) It appears to be the actual meaning of the text in view of the evident connection with the narrative of Genesis 6-12.
(3) It is consistent with the perspective of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy that YHWH is Elohim.

[maklelan]

Rob, I’ll start by stating that I had requested that this discussion not incorporate other texts, but focus just on what Deut 32:8-9 says in and of itself. Part of the reason for this was because I want to establish what the text means on its own before getting into what contextualization is possible. Another reason is because I don’t want to spend a lot of time chasing down and dispatching with exegetical white rabbits. They tend to proliferate exponentially in situations where someone is responding ad hoc to these kinds of discussions. You’ve ignored that request. I can see you think you’ve got a strong case here, but I’ll take the time with this to show why it’s not very strong, but in the future I’d appreciate at least acknowledging that you’re ignoring the criteria of my thread.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Dan,

You argue that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 clearly identifies YHWH as one of the sons of Elohim. Your argument here follows the Dead Sea Scroll text (4QDeut^j) that has “sons of Elohim” instead of “sons of Israel” (MT). Here is a translation of the passage, based on your textual reconstruction. (My comments regarding the translation and exegesis will follow.)

I agree that the 4QDeut text and the LXX reading “angels of God” together make a plausible case for “sons of Elohim” as the original reading. Still, I have to urge a caution here that we should accept this reading only with some tentativeness, given that we only have one incomplete manuscript with this particular reading. I am sure that if the situation was reversed and I were basing an argument on a reading preserved in a single manuscript, you would also suggest caution in building an argument on that basis.

Actually no, and for a couple different reasons. To begin with, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts are roughly 1000 years older than the oldest extant Hebrew biblical manuscripts. A single text that attests to a different reading, fragmentary or not, must be taken seriously. Second, we don't have other manuscripts from this time period that attest to MT's reading. DSS is simply the oldest witness. Again, age takes precedence. Third, the second oldest witness, the Septuagint, accords with the reading of DSS. In text-critical terms, the case is as closed as it can be. No one in scholarship seriously supports MT against 4QDeut<j>.  

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Your argument here, “The nations were divided up according to the number of the Sons of God, not the number of the Sons of God plus an extra,” presupposes that the term “the nations” in this passage must include Israel. Not only is this presupposition exegetically unnecessary, a good case can be made against it. In Deuteronomy, as elsewhere in the OT, “the nations” (gôy?m) are typically the foreign peoples distinct from Israel, and thus do not include Israel (Deut. 4:27; 8:20; 12:2, 29; 17:14; 19:1; 26:19; 28:1; 29:24; 30:1). In the immediate context of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, “the nations” are those peoples who existed when the Most High “divided the sons of man.” This division of the nations probably refers to the division detailed in the Table of Nations, when “the nations were divided after the flood” (Gen. 10:32). Deuteronomy 32:8 uses the same “nations” (gôy?m) as well as the same verb for “divided” found in Genesis 10:32 (parad, also in Gen. 10:5). Thus, Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to an act involving nations that did not include Israel, which did not yet exist. After the flood, God had given over the nations to be ruled by other “gods,” but then he created a new people for himself, the people of Israel.

It is true, as you have pointed out, that the term “peoples” (‘ammîm) in the OT often includes or refers to Israel, and that the word “nations” (gôy?m) can include Israel even though in Deuteronomy it usually does not. What we can fairly derive from these observations is that these words must be interpreted in their contexts. Here’s what I understand is going on in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The text refers to the Most High apportioning the nations and the division of the sons of man, which appears to refer to the division of nations following the flood. The text then speaks of the Most High fixing “the boundaries of the peoples,” here using gôy?m as a synonym for ammîm. Thus, this usage of ammîm also refers to non-Israelite peoples existing after the flood and before the patriarchal era. These “peoples,” I argue, stand in contrast to YHWH’s “people” (‘ammô) in verse 9. This interpretation makes coherent, consistent sense of the uses of gôy?m and ‘ammîm/‘ammô in this passage, and it fits the typical usage of gôy?m elsewhere in Deuteronomy.

I meant to thank you for pointing this out earlier. It was something that I hadn't considered, so I went back and did some more research. The first thing to consider is that if we accept Deut 32:8 as a reference to the table of nations, then "sons of Israel" cannot be acceptable. There were not seventy sons of Israel according to any tradition (whether you speak of the man Jacob or of the members of the house of Israel). There were, however, 70 sons of Elohim according to a common Syro-Palestinian tradition that goes back to the mid-second millennium BCE.  

I've already shown that "nations" and "peoples" is acceptable as a reference to Israel, and the Song of Moses' distinct provenance within Deuteronomy precludes using the greater context as a restrictive interpretive key (see here for the definitive study on the provenance of Deut 32). I also said I want to try to see how the text should be interpreted on its own. This may seem like an excuse to avoid context, but, again, the Song of Moses is of unique origin within Deuteronomy, and vv. 8-9 are of distinct origin within the Song itself. The context will also be shown to be irrelevant.

Next, your understanding of the division of the nations is only applicable if we accept the asseverative ??, which I've already shown is most likely not original, and bizarre if it is. Even if we do accept the ??, this kind of chronologically disparate parallelism is even more anomalous. Where do we find a couplet with one temporal context explicitly stated in the first stiche and a vastly disparate one assumed in the termination? This doesn't make much sense, and I can explain why. Genesis 10 hadn't been written yet. There was no tradition pushing the separation of the nations that far back in time.

The tradition of 70 nations was extant well before Deuteronomy 32 (it's found in numerous ancient Near Eastern texts), which I date to around the time of the United Monarchy. Genesis 10, however, shows signs of much later composition. To begin with, Genesis 10 is a collection of national eponyms. The names are intended to be the people after whom the nations are named. However, many names within the table are names of peoples that first pop up in Iron Age II, or the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. Ashkenaz, the son of Gomer, for instance, is an eponym for the nation of Ashkuz (the nun and the waw were confused), or the Scythians. The name Ashkuz first shows up in the 8th century. Magog, the son of Japheth is an eponym of the land of Magog, which is actually an Assyrian name, Mat Gugu, which is Lydia. Again, this pops up in the 8th century. Madai is the origin for the Medes, a group that pops up as Amadai in the 9th century BCE. The Philistines are mentioned, and they didn't exist at all until around 1150 BCE. They receded to obscurity at the rise of the monarchy until the 8th century, when there was a brief resurgence. Tiras is either a group from the Sea Peoples known by the Egyptians as the Tirshu, which places them in the 12th century BCE, or the Thracians, which are from the late 8th century BCE.

To sum up, Genesis 10 is a view of the nations of the earth that existed, or were known of, in the 9th and 8th century BCE. The tradition does not predate Deut 32:8-9 and so does not provide too archaic a date for Israel to be portioned out with the rest of the nations. This squares with what the text says in and of itself. In other words, this reading makes it so we don't have to wonder why such chronologically disparate events were put together in such a synchronic way. Your criticism does not hold.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

In our previous discussion, you also objected that my citation of Genesis 10 assumes “a univocal text.” Frankly, I don’t put any stock in this objection. All exegesis depends to some extent on understanding language through comparison with how that language is used elsewhere.

I agree, but it's one thing to say that Genesis 10 can inform our understanding of what Deut 32:8-9 is saying and it's quite another to say that Genesis 10 must agree with what Deut 32:8-9 is saying.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

The verbal connections between Genesis 10:5, 32 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 are sufficient to establish a plausible thematic connection between the two texts.

Which connection may exist for any number of reasons. They could both be drawing from the same ideological matrix, adapting their interpretation to their particular needs. One could be borrowing from the other, but what if the other is borrowing from the one? These all need to be considered. As I show above, Genesis 10 comes from a much later time period. I think it is most likely that Genesis 10 is creating a new foundational history based on this idea of seventy nations, and Deut 32:8-9 did not have that history attached to the tradition.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Barring some exegetical datum in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to preclude this interpretation, I don’t see any reason to reject it. Furthermore, in reviewing the topic, I have realized that there is additional evidence confirming the correlation between Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Genesis, which I will discuss below.

Another exegetical matter you discuss is the beginning of verse 9. You argue that we should adopt an emendation of the Hebrew text (which has the conjunction kî, both in the MT and in 4QDeut),

No, I pointed out that ?? is not in 4QDeut<j>. The fragment breaks off right at the end of the word ?????, so we don't have v. 9. See here.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

based on the LXX reading kai egenethe, “and it came to pass.” Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct and the original reading was something like wayehî, “and it came to pass.” This reading seems to fit my interpretation quite well, perhaps even better than the MT/DSS reading. The Most High allotted the nations among the sons of Elohim, and “it came to pass” that YHWH’s “allotment” was his people Jacob. The transition “and it came to pass” allows for a passage of time

No, that's not what "it came to pass" means. It's a simple conjunction with no temporal nuance associated with it. A better translation would be "And it happened," or "and it became," since what the word really is is the past perfect (literally imperfect in waw-consecutive construction) of the verb "to be." This is the exact same phrase used for "and the word of the Lord came to me." It's literally, "and became the word of YHWH to me." This uses the verb "to be" as the subject of the sentence rather than as part of a colloquial conjunction. This is how LXX reads it.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

and is therefore consistent with my explanation that verse 8 refers to the division of nations in Genesis 10 while verse 9 refers to the later emergence of Jacob as a people belonging uniquely to YHWH.

The conjunction doesn't work like that.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Then there is the exegetical issue of the use of “inheritance” (nachalatô), which, as you pointed out, means inheritance or possession (we might also translate it “estate”). This word is the substantival form of the verb nachal used in verse 8 to express the Most High’s action with respect to the nations. There is a grammatical question here: does verse 8 mean that the Most High apportioned the nations to someone else (presumably “the sons of Elohim”) or that he gave the nations their apportionment, that is, their possession or inheritance? Your interpretation assumes, I think, that the former is correct, but I’m not convinced this is correct. Many Jewish and Christian translations follow the latter exegesis (e.g., ESV, JPS, KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, RSV, TNK); only the NRSV (“apportioned the nations”) allows for the former exegesis, but even it does not make this explicit. For the sake of argument, I have followed the NRSV on this point in my translation while noting the ambiguity.

The verb (and especially the hiphil) doesn't allow for the latter reading, and the cola immediately following is only parallel to the former. With this verb, the object is always the thing being given as an inheritance. The only way the latter reading would work is if there were an indirect object (with a double accusative).

[maklelan]

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Now, your interpretation understands the apportionment in verse 9 to be the same event as verse 8, which is understood as the Most High apportioning the nations to the sons of Elohim. On this basis, you conclude that verse 9 means that YHWH’s apportionment in that general apportioning of the nations was the people of Jacob. Grammatically, your interpretation seems to be a possible one, but by no means the only exegetically tenable interpretation. It is also possible to understand verse 9 to mean that sometime after the Most High apportioned the nations (whatever that means), YHWH took possession of his people Jacob as his apportionment. This way of reading the text does not require us to understand YHWH as one of the sons of Elohim.

It does require he be understood as a person receiving an inheritance and not a person giving an inheritance, though. The parallelism antithetic in that one is giving and another is receiving. Given that Genesis 10 is not a concern, I see no reason to try to force such an understanding onto the text.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

I should point out that verse 8 is oddly worded, even in 4QDeut, if its point is that the Most High assigned each nation to a particular son of Elohim. Let me quote it again:

That is an awkward or at least roundabout way of saying that he apportioned the nations by distributing each one of them to one of the sons of Elohim.

I don't see how it's awkward. It's perfectly natural AA / AB parallelism. It progresses a step with each cola and the climax is the statement that it was done according to the number of the sons of Elohim. There are numerous examples of this kind of parallelism in the Hebrew Bible.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

I’m not saying it is an impossible interpretation, only that it is not an obvious way of saying it. The closest verbally parallel text in the Hebrew Bible is in Numbers 26, where YHWH commands Moses and Eleazar to take a census of “all the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Num. 26:2), which they do by tribes and by clans within those tribes (Num. 26:5-51). Then we read:

It’s possible to understand Deuteronomy 32:8 4QDeut in a roughly analogous way. The Most High divided the nations and fixed their boundaries in order to reflect in some way the distribution of the “sons of Elohim” among those peoples.

I’m afraid I don’t follow. The numbers text has nothing to do with the construction of Deut 32:8 or the verbs being used. Joshua 4:5, 8 are much more closely relate to Deut 32:8b.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

At this point, I would like to suggest another factor that adds strong additional support for my understanding that the apportionment and division of Deuteronomy 32:8 is related to the division of the nations in Genesis 10. It has to do with the expression “sons of Elohim” in Deuteronomy 32:8. This precise expression is actually quite rare in the Hebrew Bible. It shows up in the Book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and we’ve had some discussions on those passages in a separate thread. The only other place in which this expression occurs is Genesis 6:2, 4. Here is that passage:

It is quite interesting that the expression “sons of Elohim” shows up in Genesis 6 in reference to the rise of the Nephilim, giants that Genesis says were on the earth both before the flood and afterward.

Nephilim doesn’t mean giants, it means fallen or aborted ones. “Giants” is how the Septuagint tried to translate the word as they understood it based on Num 13:33. In addition, the text never makes reference to any “rise” of the Nephilim. They’re simply said to be there. They have no connection with the sons of God in Genesis 6.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Genesis 6 thus connects the sons of Elohim and their offspring, the “mighty ones” known as Nephilim, not only to the time before the flood but also to the time of the repopulation of the earth following the flood. In other words, we should see a connection between the incident described in Genesis 6:1-4 and the rise of the nations described in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. The first of the “mighty ones” that Genesis 6 says came afterward was Nimrod (Gen. 10:8-9). Nimrod’s kingdom began at Babylon in the land of Shinar, the precise location, according to Genesis, from which YHWH scattered the nations when they attempted to consolidate their power at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:2, 9). These references to Nimrod and Babylon in Genesis 10-11 confirm the connection between the “sons of Elohim” passage in Genesis 6 and the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

This is a bizarre bit of exegesis, but Genesis 10 is from a much later date, and the “sons of God” are referred to in Job as relevant to events prior to the creation of the earth as well as contemporary to Job’s day. The sons of God also aren’t associated in any way with the division of the nations, they’re just associated with the wickedness of the earth and the cause of the flood. The nations are a completely different story, and there are absolutely zero connections between the Nephilim and Nimrod. The Nephilim are not the children of the sons of God, Nimrod is never called a Nephilim, and the gibborim are not associated with the Nephilim. He’s called a gibor, but that word applies to hundreds of people in the Hebrew Bible. You’ve also got the bene ’elim from Psalm 29, the bene ‘elyon from Psalm 82, and numerous other synonyms to bene ’elohim that have nothing to do with Genesis 10. In the end, though, using the same epithets in both stories doesn’t at all mean there’s a connection. The connections between Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82 are much clearer, and they don’t use the same epithets. Additionally, YHWH is the God of the whole earth in Genesis 6. He’s not waiting to receive a nation as an inheritance. What I see here is an attempt to link loose lexical similarities to some kind of genetic literary connection, which requires a lot more than similar words and phrases occurring within a certain number of chapters from each other.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Now let us return to Deuteronomy 32:8. It states that the Most High apportioned the nations by dividing the sons of man and fixing the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Elohim. We now see a cluster of three key expressions in this text relating to the narrative in Genesis 6-11: the “sons of Elohim,” the “nations,” and their “division.” I do not think this can be dismissed as accidental, especially in view of how rare the expression “sons of Elohim” is in the OT. Genesis 10 is, I believe, also the only other passage in the OT besides Deuteronomy 32 that speaks of a division of the nations. These clusters of unusual verbal and thematic links, in my opinion, put the association over the line of a possibility; it is highly probable.

And this means either there’s a common tradition in their background, or they’re somehow genetically linked. Given Genesis 10 comes from much later, the former is the only logical conclusion.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

In the Genesis narrative, immediately after the division of the nations in Genesis 10:1-11:9, the text introduces Abram as the figure whom YHWH chose from one of those nations (Gen. 11:10-32) to be the father of a new nation: “I will make you into a great nation” (Gen. 12:2a). This nation of which Abram was the patriarch would be the object of YHWH’s blessing and the agency through which YHWH would bring blessing to “all the peoples on earth” (Gen. 12:2b-3). There is, then, a narrative sequence of the division of the nations (Gen. 10-11) followed by the creation of a new nation that would be the object and agency of YHWH’s blessing (Gen. 12 onward). This two-step narrative sequence is consistent with what we find in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where the Most High divides the nations and then Jacob becomes YHWH’s people and possession.

Once we recognize the connection between Genesis 6-11 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, we can see that YHWH is not one of the “sons of Elohim” in the latter text, since those “sons of Elohim” are heavenly rebels causing mischief on the earth.

Here’s another place your theory fails to account for the texts. In the three different groups of texts where the “sons of God” are portrayed they have vastly different roles. In Job they appear to be just heavenly soldiers. In Genesis 6 they are rebellious sons. In Deuteronomy 32 they are the gods of the nations. You’re trying to point to connections, but they don’t work unless you’ve already decided the differences are irrelevant. Since the only connections you can make are lexical, the theory holds little water.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

I contend, then, that the meaning of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is as follows. When God divided the nations, he did so in such a way that the rebellious “sons of Elohim” who corrupted the human race and threatened to do so again would be distributed or scattered widely along with those nations and peoples. Following this preservative action, what happened next was the rise of a new nation, the people of Jacob (Israel), the great nation that YHWH promised he would make from Abram. This special people are the people of YHWH, the people he possesses for himself. The text is not saying that God authorized each of his faithful sons to rule over a different nation on earth, and YHWH’s assigned nation happened to be Jacob. Rather, the text is saying that while the surrounding nations continued to be dominated by the rebellious “sons of Elohim,” Jacob had the tremendous privilege of being YHWH’s own people. This interpretation is to be preferred, for the following reasons considered together:

(1) It is consistent with the wording of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, viewed in and of itself.

I don’t see anything above that supports this.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

(2) It appears to be the actual meaning of the text in view of the evident connection with the narrative of Genesis 6-12.

The connections are purely lexical, and even then the connection is merely that the phrase “sons of God” occurs within four chapters of the division of the nations. That’s hardly a connection.

Rob Bowman, on 15 February 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

(3) It is consistent with the perspective of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy that YHWH is Elohim.

But Deuteronomy 32 is from a different time, place, and author. That’s a different discussion, though, that I was saving for later.

Edited by maklelan, 16 February 2010 - 02:46 AM.

[Vance]

Yes, indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

maklelan, on 16 February 2010 - 02:43 AM, said:

Rob, I’ll start by stating that I had requested that this discussion not incorporate other texts, but focus just on what Deut 32:8-9 says in and of itself. Part of the reason for this was because I want to establish what the text means on its own before getting into what contextualization is possible. Another reason is because I don’t want to spend a lot of time chasing down and dispatching with exegetical white rabbits. They tend to proliferate exponentially in situations where someone is responding ad hoc to these kinds of discussions. You’ve ignored that request. I can see you think you’ve got a strong case here, but I’ll take the time with this to show why it’s not very strong, but in the future I’d appreciate at least acknowledging that you’re ignoring the criteria of my thread.

If I thought I was "ignoring" your criteria, I would have said something about it. I cited other texts only as I thought they were directly relevant to the exegesis of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. There was nothing ad hoc about my citing other texts in Deuteronomy using the word "nations," for example. You may wish to exclude such information, but if so, I won't be able to follow your exegetical method.

You wrote:

Quote

I meant to thank you for pointing this out earlier. It was something that I hadn't considered, so I went back and did some more research. The first thing to consider is that if we accept Deut 32:8 as a reference to the table of nations, then "sons of Israel" cannot be acceptable.

My argument that Deuteronomy 32:8 is connected thematically to the table of nations passage in Genesis 10 grants for the sake of discussion the reading "sons of Elohim" rather than "sons of Israel."

You wrote:

Quote

I've already shown that "nations" and "peoples" is acceptable as a reference to Israel, and the Song of Moses' distinct provenance within Deuteronomy precludes using the greater context as a restrictive interpretive key (see here for the definitive study on the provenance of Deut 32). I also said I want to try to see how the text should be interpreted on its own. This may seem like an excuse to avoid context, but, again, the Song of Moses is of unique origin within Deuteronomy, and vv. 8-9 are of distinct origin within the Song itself. The context will also be shown to be irrelevant.

Actually, as best I can see, your move is not only an excuse to avoid context, but a self-defeating exclusion of the use of texts outside the two verses under consideration. The way you "showed" that Israel might be included in the terms "nations" and "peoples" is by appealing to other occurrences of those words, in other texts, that fit your interpretation. So, apparently, it's okay for you to appeal to texts outside these two verses, but not for me to do so. Your game, your rules?

I'll restate the matter this way: you and I both agree that in some texts "nations" and "peoples" are inclusive of Israel, and in some texts not. That being the case, my exegetical claim that these terms in verse 8 refer to nations/peoples other than Israel is linguistically, semantically defensible. I don't need to show that they must be so interpreted to show that my view is exegetically plausible. And that's all I am aiming to show.

You wrote:

Quote

Next, your understanding of the division of the nations is only applicable if we accept the asseverative ??, which I've already shown is most likely not original, and bizarre if it is.

The fact is that on any exegesis I've seen, including yours, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a most unusual text. So dismissing an exegetical view because it seems bizarre may not be a valid move.

You wrote:

Quote

Even if we do accept the ??, this kind of chronologically disparate parallelism is even more anomalous. Where do we find a couplet with one temporal context explicitly stated in the first stiche and a vastly disparate one assumed in the termination? This doesn't make much sense, and I can explain why. Genesis 10 hadn't been written yet. There was no tradition pushing the separation of the nations that far back in time.

That doesn't make sense. Deuteronomy 32:8 is itself a textual witness to such a tradition! Now, you may argue that Genesis 10 in its extant, canonical form dates from after Deuteronomy 32:8-9, but this doesn't prove that a tradition very similar to, substantially the same as, what we find in Genesis didn't exist at the time. And that's enough to support my proposed interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

You wrote:

Quote

To sum up, Genesis 10 is a view of the nations of the earth that existed, or were known of, in the 9th and 8th century BCE. The tradition does not predate Deut 32:8-9 and so does not provide too archaic a date for Israel to be portioned out with the rest of the nations.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that second sentence.

You wrote:

Quote

This squares with what the text says in and of itself. In other words, this reading makes it so we don't have to wonder why such chronologically disparate events were put together in such a synchronic way. Your criticism does not hold.

They are no more "chronologically disparate" in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 than they are in other texts, which you don't want me to cite.

You wrote:

Quote

I agree, but it's one thing to say that Genesis 10 can inform our understanding of what Deut 32:8-9 is saying and it's quite another to say that Genesis 10 must agree with what Deut 32:8-9 is saying.

My claim was the former, not the latter.

You wrote:

Quote

Which connection may exist for any number of reasons. They could both be drawing from the same ideological matrix, adapting their interpretation to their particular needs. One could be borrowing from the other, but what if the other is borrowing from the one? These all need to be considered. As I show above, Genesis 10 comes from a much later time period. I think it is most likely that Genesis 10 is creating a new foundational history based on this idea of seventy nations, and Deut 32:8-9 did not have that history attached to the tradition.

Here is another place where your exegesis, as much as mine, depends on how you view other texts. The fact that you didn't cite them in your opening post does not mean that your view of them played no part in your argument. Your argument depends on your view of the dating of Deuteronomy 32 in comparison to the rest of Deuteronomy, for example. You cannot escape placing your exegesis in a wider interpretive net any more than I can. The difference is that I am transparent about it.

You wrote:

Quote

No, I pointed out that ?? is not in 4QDeut<j>. The fragment breaks off right at the end of the word ?????, so we don't have v. 9.

My mistake; thanks for the correction.

Regarding wayehi, you wrote:

Quote

No, that's not what "it came to pass" means. It's a simple conjunction with no temporal nuance associated with it. A better translation would be "And it happened," or "and it became," since what the word really is is the past perfect (literally imperfect in waw-consecutive construction) of the verb "to be." This is the exact same phrase used for "and the word of the Lord came to me." It's literally, "and became the word of YHWH to me." This uses the verb "to be" as the subject of the sentence rather than as part of a colloquial conjunction. This is how LXX reads it.

Notice again that you are implicitly appealing to other texts, without citing them, when you explain what wayehi means.

A lot seems to be riding on your preference for the LXX reading kai egenethe and an original wayehi. It may be the best reading, but the argument places undue weight on a reading that is at the very least debatable. As you point out, we don't have the beginning of verse 9 in 4QDeut, and this means you must depend solely on the LXX against the MT.

I should not have given the impression that kai egenethe (or wayehi) necessarily denotes a passage of time, but only that it allows for it. I'll give notice that I'm violating your criterion and cite some examples (Lev. 9:1; Num. 22:41; Deut. 1:3; Josh. 17:13; 1 Sam. 1:20; 16:21, 23; 1 Kings 2:39; Jer. 36:9 [43:9 Gk.]). Even your example of the expression "the word of the Lord came to me" allows for some unspecified passage of time from the event, if any, mentioned immediately prior (e.g., 1 Sam. 15:10).

More later (probably tomorrow).

Edited by Rob Bowman, 16 February 2010 - 07:00 PM.

[maklelan]

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

Dan,

You wrote:

If I thought I was "ignoring" your criteria, I would have said something about it. I cited other texts only as I thought they were directly relevant to the exegesis of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. There was nothing ad hoc about my citing other texts in Deuteronomy using the word "nations," for example. You may wish to exclude such information, but if so, I won't be able to follow your exegetical method.

This is not a very difficult text to interpret in and of itself. I made very clear I did not want any outside texts being called upon to establish some kind of contextual mater lectionis. You did exactly what I requested not be done, and without even explaining that you thought it was necessary.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

My argument that Deuteronomy 32:8 is connected thematically to the table of nations passage in Genesis 10 grants for the sake of discussion the reading "sons of Elohim" rather than "sons of Israel."

Fair enough. Since your argument against "sons of Elohim" holds no water, how about we just jettison it altogether?

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

Actually, as best I can see, your move is not only an excuse to avoid context, but a self-defeating exclusion of the use of texts outside the two verses under consideration. The way you "showed" that Israel might be included in the terms "nations" and "peoples" is by appealing to other occurrences of those words, in other texts, that fit your interpretation. So, apparently, it's okay for you to appeal to texts outside these two verses, but not for me to do so. Your game, your rules?

But I wouldn't have to go outside the text if you hadn't done so first to assert that "nations" doesn't refer to Israel elsewhere in the Bible. If you had stayed within the boundaries I requested that never would have been a consideration.

Again, I want to establish an exclusively internal interpretation. I provided a perfectly accurate translation that contained nothing in the way of semantic or lexical manipulation or bias, and I wanted to see where that translation leads entirely in and of itself. That's not a tough thing to do.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

I'll restate the matter this way: you and I both agree that in some texts "nations" and "peoples" are inclusive of Israel, and in some texts not.

I disagree. "Nations" is often used in an excluding sense, but ??? ??? and ???? are commonly used to refer to Israel as well as other nations, especially when talking about these archaic etiologies. The three terms in parallel use make your reading incredibly tendentious. It's clearly an attempt to undermine the plain reading of the text.  

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

That being the case, my exegetical claim that these terms in verse 8 refer to nations/peoples other than Israel is linguistically, semantically defensible. I don't need to show that they must be so interpreted to show that my view is exegetically plausible. And that's all I am aiming to show.

I suppose you could call it possible, but I don't think it's plausible. It presumes far to narrow and specific a semantic range for three rather vague terms being used parallel to each other (which serves to broaden their scope, not reduce it).

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

The fact is that on any exegesis I've seen, including yours, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a most unusual text. So dismissing an exegetical view because it seems bizarre may not be a valid move.

No, exegesis should be the most cautious with unusual texts. The reason I call it bizarre is because the connections are too tenuous and have far too many variables to really be taken seriously. You have concept X with a broad conceptual range that overlaps with concept Y in a tiny little corner, so you link the two, and then take the opposite edge of concept Y and link it with a little corner of concept Z and use that to say concept A is intentionally pointing to the far end of concept Z. It's incredibly weak.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

That doesn't make sense. Deuteronomy 32:8 is itself a textual witness to such a tradition!

That's not true at all. I said there is no tradition pushing the division of the nations back that far in time, meaning, there was no tradition of a division of the nations taking place millennia before Israel ever existed (specifically during the days of Peleg). There was a tradition of a division of the nations, but we don't know the details. What Deut 32:8-9 points to is simply that there was a tradition of a division into 70 nations, which was a common one in the ancient Near East.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

Now, you may argue that Genesis 10 in its extant, canonical form dates from after Deuteronomy 32:8-9, but this doesn't prove that a tradition very similar to, substantially the same as, what we find in Genesis didn't exist at the time. And that's enough to support my proposed interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

No it's not. I can just as easily say that you have no evidence such a tradition did exist at the time. You have to work with the evidence you have, not the evidence you think may exist. The evidence we have is that Deut 32:8-9 links Israel to the division of the nations and that a later tradition preserved in Genesis 10 dates the division to shortly after the tower of Babel. You're trying to triangulate back to a tradition using Deut 32:8-9 as a point of reference, but that only works if you presuppose it's pointed at the same Urtext, which is begging the question.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand that second sentence.

The tradition in Genesis 10 conflicts in your opinion with my reading of Deuteronomy 32 because Israel did not exist at the time the nations were divided. Since Deuteronomy 32 is older than Genesis 10, and puts several countries into that division that did not exist until well after Israel existed, your conclusion is untenable. If the Medes were there during the division, why can't Israel (an older nation than the Medes) be there?  

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

They are no more "chronologically disparate" in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 than they are in other texts, which you don't want me to cite.

I asked you already to point to a scripture where such chronologically disparate events were put in parallelism with only one temporal context stated. If you can find them, be my guest.  

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

My claim was the former, not the latter.

No, your claim was very clearly the latter. You said that we must interpret v. 9 as referring to a much later time period than v. 8 because that's how Genesis 10 describes it. This is an explicit appeal to the assumption that the texts must be made to agree.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

Here is another place where your exegesis, as much as mine, depends on how you view other texts. The fact that you didn't cite them in your opening post does not mean that your view of them played no part in your argument. Your argument depends on your view of the dating of Deuteronomy 32 in comparison to the rest of Deuteronomy, for example. You cannot escape placing your exegesis in a wider interpretive net any more than I can. The difference is that I am transparent about it.

Not true. I explicitly and intentionally avoided any interpretation that relied on contextualization. If you intend to insist that my interpretation was influenced by outside texts then present a straightforward interpretation of the text, in and of itself, that makes more sense. Show me where my interpretation was influenced by other texts and how a non-contextual reading would differ.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote:

My mistake; thanks for the correction.

Regarding wayehi, you wrote:

Notice again that you are implicitly appealing to other texts, without citing them, when you explain what wayehi means.

Lexical significance has to be allowed to be determined. Keep in mind there's a very big different between lexical significance and semantic significance. If not then the text cannot even be read, much less interpreted.  

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

A lot seems to be riding on your preference for the LXX reading kai egenethe and an original wayehi. It may be the best reading, but the argument places undue weight on a reading that is at the very least debatable. As you point out, we don't have the beginning of verse 9 in 4QDeut, and this means you must depend solely on the LXX against the MT.

And it's correct against MT in the two words that immediately precede the words in question. The weight of the evidence supports my reading.

Rob Bowman, on 16 February 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

I should not have given the impression that kai egenethe (or wayehi) necessarily denotes a passage of time, but only that it allows for it. I'll give notice that I'm violating your criterion and cite some examples (Lev. 9:1;

It's "on the eighth day" that establishes a passage of time. Of course ???? allows for passages of time, but they can only be identified when they're stated. Without an explicit statement of some passage of time the word has no temporal significance. Deut 32:8-9 does not indicate any relevant passage of time (I know time passes between the giving of inheritance and the reception of inheritance, but it's an irrelevant quantity).

Edited by maklelan, 20 February 2010 - 03:14 AM.

[maklelan]

Bump.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I've read through our posts in this thread repeatedly and given the matter a lot of thought, and I really think that the exegetical parameters that you insist on using preclude a sound interpretation of the text. I simply do not agree that exegesis should be done according to rules that preclude citing texts that use the same words as the text under consideration, or texts that are demonstrably linked thematically--especially when those texts are in the same book as the text under consideration. I do not think I can discuss the text further under these arbitrary and hermeneutically dubious restrictions. By your own reasoning, we must read Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as a text without a context. That is simply unacceptable. The argument that scholars date the Song of Moses earlier than the rest of the book is irrelevant, since you also want to exclude the rest of chapter 32 from consideration in interpreting these two verses.

Furthermore, I still maintain that your exclusion is one-sided and self-serving. You excuse your citation of outside texts in response to me by saying, in effect, that I did it first. But this excuse ignores the fact that your original argument at every turn assumes that we know what various words mean. The only way to test that claim is to look at other texts where the same words appear. You make the statement that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 points to "a tradition of a division into 70 nations," when of course those two verses say nothing about the number 70. Obviously, you got that number from some other text.

I have what I think are pretty good rebuttals to several of the points you have made, but they depend on the legitimacy of the approach to exegesis and interpretation that I favor and that you, apparently for this one passage only, refuse to allow. So I must respectfully and regretfully conclude that we are at an impasse.