tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post8216191501096330303..comments2023-09-07T12:03:43.350-07:00Comments on Theological Sushi: Reference in Diachronic and Synchronic Debates, or Why I Think Source Studies Have Limited Value in Textual AnalysisB. C. Hodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-15611422781143904832012-07-27T12:38:22.543-07:002012-07-27T12:38:22.543-07:00That's fair enough. Obviously a lot of scholar...That's fair enough. Obviously a lot of scholars would say that Deut 32 is very early and the rest is a lot later, and that there was a development along the way. I think there are indirect hints in ch.32 that Elyon and Yahweh are the same - the mention that another nation is 'no people' suggests that Jacob/Israel is unique among the nations and therefore not one of those given to the Sons of God in v.8. The other thing is that the poem in Exodus 15, also considered early, shows that the idea that the Canaanites were in the promised land before Israel was around at that time. Therefore, Israel were not given a plot of land as the nations were in Deut 32v.8 but had to take it, implying they weren't one of the nations given out by Elyon.<br /><br />Sorry, I know that's convoluted! I'd be interested in seeing your paper.Ben Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320578490724889835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-17795151361529279822012-07-27T08:25:31.165-07:002012-07-27T08:25:31.165-07:00Hi Benjamin,
That's a great question. I think...Hi Benjamin,<br /><br />That's a great question. I think the history of those terms may be what scholars make of them. The problem is when we view them in context of the entirety of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. When we look to the whole of the text (even the whole of the text of just Chapter 32 for that matter) we see polytheistic language in a monotheistic context (and there are good reasons for taking that way rather than vice versa), which means that the polytheistic language there that once spoke of two separate deities now speaks of the one on those terms. I personally see the Bible using this language of Elohim/El/Elyon and YHWH to contrast God's transcendent and imminent work in the world (i.e., a theology of God from above and God from below). I wrote a paper on it that I'll try to edit and put up today, so you can see what evidence I think supports a monotheistic context in which polytheistic language should be read; and therefore, in which we should understand that polytheistic language no longer carries its implicature (i.e., other gods, in the sense that God is a God, exist) in those contexts.B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-67228929256629647222012-07-27T02:55:30.730-07:002012-07-27T02:55:30.730-07:00Hi Bryan,
I've been thinking about the whole ...Hi Bryan,<br /><br />I've been thinking about the whole polytheism/monotheism debate recently. The key text, of course, is Deut. 32:8,9. What would you say are good reasons, within the chapter, to see 'Elyon' and 'YHWH' as being one and the same, rather than seeing 'YHWH' as one of the second-tier deities given Jacob by Elyon as some critics do?Ben Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320578490724889835noreply@blogger.com